No description available.

<p>Uppsatsens syfte är att söka bringa klarhet i huruvida de krav som finns i 12 § Marknadsföringslagen (MFL) är förenliga med artikel 101(1) Lissabonfördraget samt 2:1 Konkurrenslagen (KL). I arbetet kommer rättsdogmatisk metod att användas, vilket innebär redogörelse av hur de aktuella rättsreglerna är utformade (<em>de lege lata</em>) samt hur de kan tänkas revideras (<em>de lege ferenda).</em> Marknadsföring nyttjas av många företag i näringslivet, marknadsföring får företagen att synas på marknaden och därmed nå ut till konsument och näringsidkare. Att utforma ett köperbjudande, en bestämd produkt tillsammans med ett angivet pris är en marknadsföringsmetod. Hur ett köperbjudande skall vara utformat finns reglerat i 12 § MFL. Syftet med bestämmelsen i 12 § är att skydda konsumenten mot vilseledande marknadsföring som kan hindra konsumenten att fatta ett välgrundat affärsbeslut.</p><p> </p><p>Den problematik som nu uppkommit vid tillämpning av 12 § var från konkurrensverket (KKV) förutspådd. Problematiken vid tillämpningen av 12 § MFL uppstår då fristående företag tillsammans utformar ett köperbjudande i sin marknadsföring. Samarbetet om det exakta priset är något som enligt MFL är tillåtet medan det enligt artikel 101 (1) Lissabonfördraget och 2:1 KL utgör ett otillåtet prissamarbete. Skulle företagen för att undkomma att handla i strid med de konkurrensrättsliga bestämmelserna välja att ange ett från- eller cirkapris strider det mot de marknadsrättsliga reglerna. Förfarandet medför att företag utom den ekonomiska enheten inte har någon möjlighet att marknadsföra sig tillsammans i form av ett köperbjudande utan att agera i strid med lagen. Detta är en konsekvens som kan komma resultera i att företag väljer att utelämna priset ur marknadsföringen, något som är till nackdel för konsumenten.</p><p> </p><p>En lösning av en del av problemet vore att Sverige, precis som England inför ett tredje rekvisit för köperbjudande. Detta innebär att köperbjudandet måste ligga nära avtalsslutet. Konsumenten skall ha möjlighet att köpa produkten genom den information som anges i köperbjudandet. På så sätt skulle det vara möjligt för fristående företag att gå samman om marknadsföring som inte ligger nära avtalsslutet. De undkommer då bestämmelserna angående exakt pris som anges 12 § MFL vilket i sin tur innebär att en priskartell enligt artikel 101 (1) Lissabonfördraget och 2:1 KL inte ligger för handen.</p> / <p>The following essay has been written with the purpose to find out if 12 § Marketing Act (MFL) is compatible with article 101 (1) Treaty of Lisbon and 2:1 Competition law. A legal dogmatic method was applied in the essay, which means that it took into account the rules of law (<em>de lege lata</em>) and how the law should be written (<em>de lege ferenda</em>). Marketing is used by many manufacturers with the purpose to reach out to and inform the consumer about their products. In order to reach that goal, many manufacturers use by-offers, showing a product jointly with a price. The marketing Act aims to eliminate misleading marketing procedures. Therefore, 12 § was created to regulate these invitation to purchase. The rule is constructed with the purpose to protect consumers against misleading marketing and prevent the consumer from making the wrong economical decision.</p><p> </p><p>The problems that would arise with the application of the law were already predicted by the Swedish Competition Authority before the law came into effect in the Marketing Act. The application difficulties with 12 § appeared when smaller manufacturers that were not within the same economical unit constructed a concerted invitation to purchase. The proceeding had to be considered as an illegitimate price cooperation according to article 101 (1) Treaty of Lisbon and also 2:1 Competition law.</p><p> </p><p>If the manufakturers, with the wish to not act in conflict with the competition laws, would state a price that is not exact, they would act in conflict with the Marketing Act.  A consequence of this problem could be that the manufacturers do not include prices in their commercials in order to get away from the rule of invitations to purchase. This can lead to disadvantages for the consumers because they cannot take part of the prices that smaller manufacturers have, which will inevitably lead toward a limited overview of the marked on their behalf.</p><p> </p><p>To solve the problem, England has introduced a third prerequisite for invitations to purchase. The third prerequisite specifies that the invitation to purchase has to make it possible for the consumer to actually buy the product. The invitation to purchase has to be close to an agreement between the manufacturer and the consumer. In that case, all the commercials that do not make it possible for the consumer to actually buy the product will not be considered as an invitation to purchase. This would make 12 § MFL unfeasible and would lead towards a development in which the small manufacturers that are not within the same economical unit would be able to cooperate with their commercials without acting against article 101 (1) Treaty of Lisbon and also 2:1 KL.</p>

Uppsatsens syfte är att söka bringa klarhet i huruvida de krav som finns i 12 § Marknadsföringslagen (MFL) är förenliga med artikel 101(1) Lissabonfördraget samt 2:1 Konkurrenslagen (KL). I arbetet kommer rättsdogmatisk metod att användas, vilket innebär redogörelse av hur de aktuella rättsreglerna är utformade (de lege lata) samt hur de kan tänkas revideras (de lege ferenda). Marknadsföring nyttjas av många företag i näringslivet, marknadsföring får företagen att synas på marknaden och därmed nå ut till konsument och näringsidkare. Att utforma ett köperbjudande, en bestämd produkt tillsammans med ett angivet pris är en marknadsföringsmetod. Hur ett köperbjudande skall vara utformat finns reglerat i 12 § MFL. Syftet med bestämmelsen i 12 § är att skydda konsumenten mot vilseledande marknadsföring som kan hindra konsumenten att fatta ett välgrundat affärsbeslut.   Den problematik som nu uppkommit vid tillämpning av 12 § var från konkurrensverket (KKV) förutspådd. Problematiken vid tillämpningen av 12 § MFL uppstår då fristående företag tillsammans utformar ett köperbjudande i sin marknadsföring. Samarbetet om det exakta priset är något som enligt MFL är tillåtet medan det enligt artikel 101 (1) Lissabonfördraget och 2:1 KL utgör ett otillåtet prissamarbete. Skulle företagen för att undkomma att handla i strid med de konkurrensrättsliga bestämmelserna välja att ange ett från- eller cirkapris strider det mot de marknadsrättsliga reglerna. Förfarandet medför att företag utom den ekonomiska enheten inte har någon möjlighet att marknadsföra sig tillsammans i form av ett köperbjudande utan att agera i strid med lagen. Detta är en konsekvens som kan komma resultera i att företag väljer att utelämna priset ur marknadsföringen, något som är till nackdel för konsumenten.   En lösning av en del av problemet vore att Sverige, precis som England inför ett tredje rekvisit för köperbjudande. Detta innebär att köperbjudandet måste ligga nära avtalsslutet. Konsumenten skall ha möjlighet att köpa produkten genom den information som anges i köperbjudandet. På så sätt skulle det vara möjligt för fristående företag att gå samman om marknadsföring som inte ligger nära avtalsslutet. De undkommer då bestämmelserna angående exakt pris som anges 12 § MFL vilket i sin tur innebär att en priskartell enligt artikel 101 (1) Lissabonfördraget och 2:1 KL inte ligger för handen. / The following essay has been written with the purpose to find out if 12 § Marketing Act (MFL) is compatible with article 101 (1) Treaty of Lisbon and 2:1 Competition law. A legal dogmatic method was applied in the essay, which means that it took into account the rules of law (de lege lata) and how the law should be written (de lege ferenda). Marketing is used by many manufacturers with the purpose to reach out to and inform the consumer about their products. In order to reach that goal, many manufacturers use by-offers, showing a product jointly with a price. The marketing Act aims to eliminate misleading marketing procedures. Therefore, 12 § was created to regulate these invitation to purchase. The rule is constructed with the purpose to protect consumers against misleading marketing and prevent the consumer from making the wrong economical decision.   The problems that would arise with the application of the law were already predicted by the Swedish Competition Authority before the law came into effect in the Marketing Act. The application difficulties with 12 § appeared when smaller manufacturers that were not within the same economical unit constructed a concerted invitation to purchase. The proceeding had to be considered as an illegitimate price cooperation according to article 101 (1) Treaty of Lisbon and also 2:1 Competition law.   If the manufakturers, with the wish to not act in conflict with the competition laws, would state a price that is not exact, they would act in conflict with the Marketing Act.  A consequence of this problem could be that the manufacturers do not include prices in their commercials in order to get away from the rule of invitations to purchase. This can lead to disadvantages for the consumers because they cannot take part of the prices that smaller manufacturers have, which will inevitably lead toward a limited overview of the marked on their behalf.   To solve the problem, England has introduced a third prerequisite for invitations to purchase. The third prerequisite specifies that the invitation to purchase has to make it possible for the consumer to actually buy the product. The invitation to purchase has to be close to an agreement between the manufacturer and the consumer. In that case, all the commercials that do not make it possible for the consumer to actually buy the product will not be considered as an invitation to purchase. This would make 12 § MFL unfeasible and would lead towards a development in which the small manufacturers that are not within the same economical unit would be able to cooperate with their commercials without acting against article 101 (1) Treaty of Lisbon and also 2:1 KL.

Small islands developing states (SIDS) sustainability is a United Nations’ aim. Their markets are often influenced by external policies imposed by larger economies. Could an anti-competitive measure affect the food vulnerability of a SIDS? This research examines the effects of an external non-tariff measure (NTM) on Puerto Rico’s (PR) agribusinesses. It explores the effects of a maritime cabotage regulation (US Jones Act) on the affordability and accessibility of produce and grains. PR imports 100% of their needs of grain and over 85% of fresh produce. PR’s food imports are generally from the US and the trade service is restricted to the use of the US maritime transportation. As a result, the supply chain of these two sectors although different, are limited by the US Act that may impact the cost of food, its availability, firms’ efficiency and other structures of production. Using a mixed convergent design, PR’s agrifood supply chains were explored and analysed in relation to the maritime cabotage regulation. Oligopolistic structures and collusion between maritime transporters and local agribusinesses importers limit the access to data, but other internal factors also have a role. Fieldwork shows that while the cabotage regulation itself is a constraint, interaction with others NTM and the current political framework between US and PR are relevant. Factors such as lack of efficiency, poor innovation and a self-limitation of the agribusinesses firms were found. The novelty of this research is the use of mixed methods to evaluate the effects of cabotage on the agrifood supply chain.

En tant qu’organisation qui a vocation à réguler les échanges commerciaux mondiaux et qui promeut le libre-échange, l’OMC désigne naturellement l’une des principales, voire l’unique, structure internationale capable d’incarner l’approche multilatérale qui s’impose devant la mondialisation des pratiques anticoncurrentielles et des opérations de concentration. Les règles de concurrence présentes dans son corpus juridique, ainsi que la jurisprudence issue de leur mise en œuvre, grâce notamment à l’existence d’un mécanisme contraignant de règlement des différends, forment un droit primaire de la concurrence. Toutefois, un tel droit ne régit que les comportements des acteurs étatiques et n’appréhende les agissements des particuliers que de manière indirecte. Par conséquent, il nécessite d’être complété et adapté aux nouvelles réalités procédant de la mondialisation des économies, ce par le biais d’une adoption d’un accord multilatéral portant sur la concurrence. Le système de règlement des litiges devrait aussi subir une mutation, en renforçant ses techniques de sanction et en s’ouvrant aux personnes privées / As an organization which goal is to regulate international trade exchanges and to promote free trade, the World Trade Organization refers naturally to one of the main international structures or even the only one which can embody the multilateral approach needed to face the globalization of anti-competitive practices and concentration operations. The competition rules mentioned in its legal corpus as well as the case law from their implementation, are a primary competition law thanks to the existence of a coercing mechanism to solve problems in particular. However, a such rule only governs the states actors’ behaviours and is not directly apprehensive of the acting of the individuals. Therefore, it needs to be completed and adapted to the new realities of the situation by proceeding the globalization of the economies by means of the adoption of an multilateral agreement over the competition. The settlement of dispute system would need some change, by strengthening its technical punishments and by opening its gates to the private individuals

S’il est désormais clairement établi que les personnes publiques peuvent, d’une part, prendre en charge des activités sur le marché, d’autre part, candidater à des contrats de la commande publique, les conditions dans lesquelles s’exerce la concurrence des personnes publiques sont souvent l’objet de contestations dans la mesure où on leur fait reproche d’être avantagées par leur statut de droit public. L’objet de cette thèse est de démontrer que les personnes publiques ne sont ni avantagées, ni défavorisées par leur statut mais simplement inadaptées et inadaptables au milieu concurrentiel car le statut de droit public implique structurellement une distorsion concurrentielle et donc une atteinte à l’exigence d’égale concurrence. Cette difficulté pourrait toutefois être surmontée en consolidant les sociétés publiques. / It is now established that a public law person can take over activities on the market, and apply for public procurement contracts. But the terms under which these public law persons are present on the competitive market are disputed, as their statute under public law is often criticized as an unfair advantage. This thesis aims to demonstrate that public law persons are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by their statute, but are simply not suited – and can't be adapted – to the competitive market, as their public law statute structurally implies a competitive distortion and an infringement to the legal requirements for fair competition. That difficulty may however be overcome by consolidating state-owned enterprises.

Le droit de l’Union européenne appréhende les comportements d’entreprises en matière de prix par des règles antitrust et par une législation contre le dumping. Ces deux réglementations diffèrent à de nombreux égards. Elles poursuivent des objectifs différents : défense des intérêts de certains concurrents européens versus promotion de la libre concurrence au bénéfice des consommateurs. Cependant, toutes deux contribuent à protéger la loyauté de la concurrence (i.e. promotion d’une certaine homogéniété des conditions de concurrence). Elles appréhendent des pratiques tarifaires différentes : les marchés concernés sont définis différemment (produit concerné exporté depuis un pays tiers et produit similaire fabriqué par l’industrie de l’Union versus marché de produit et marché géographique en cause) et les caractéristiques des entreprises concernées sont également différentes (aucune forme d’accord entre entreprises ou de pouvoir de marché minimum requis par la législation antidumping) ; le dumping discriminatoire n’équivaut à aucun prix discriminatoire anticoncurrentiel, et le dumping à perte n’est pas l’équivalent du prix prédateur ni de tout autre prix bas anticoncurrentiel. Nonobstant leurs différences, les deux réglementations doivent coexister paisiblement. Pourtant, les opportunités de biais protectionnistes dans la détermination du dumping préjudiciable sont toujours nombreuses dans la législation antidumping et la pratique de la Commission. En outre, la mise en oeuvre de la législation antidumping peut être néfaste pour la concurrence dans le marché intérieur via l’incidence des procédures et des mesures antidumping et les effets anticoncurrentiels de certains comportements d’entreprises dans le cadre des procédures antidumping ou environnant ces dernières. De telles incidences nocives pour la concurrence sont déjà réduites par des dispositions telles que la règle du droit moindre et la clause d’intérêt public (intérêt de l’Union), mais pourraient et devraient l’être davantage. / European Union law addresses pricing practices of undertakings through antitrust provisions and an anti-dumping legislation. These two sets of regulations differ in many respects. They pursue different aims: protection of the interest of some European competitors versus promotion of free competition for the benefit o f consumers. However, they both hept to ensure fair competition (i.e. promotion of alevel playing field). They address different pricing practices: the markets concerned are differently defined (concerned product exported from one third country andsimilar product produced by the Union industry versus relevant product and geographic markets) and the characteristics of the undertakings concerned are also different (no sort of agreement between undertakings and no minimum market power required in anti-dumping law); price discrimination dumping in not equivalent to any anti-competitive price discrimination and below cost dumping is not equivalent to predatory pricing or to any other low anti-competitive price. Not with standing their differences, both sets of regulations have to coexist peacefully. Yet, opportunities of protectionist biases in the determination of injurious dumping are still numerous in the anti-dumping legislation and Commission’s practice. Moreover, the enforcementof the anti-dumping legislation may negatively affect competition in the internal market through the impact of the anti-dumping proceedings and measures and the anti-competitive effects of some undertakings’ behaviors within the ambit of, or surrounding the anti-dumping proceedings. Such harmful effects on competition of the anti-dumping action are already reduced by provisions such as the lesser duty rule and the public interest clause (Union interest), but could and should be further reduced.

數位時代孕育大數據技術的發展並帶動產業的創新，使用者數據的運用也日益活躍於商業領域，並分別為消費者與事業帶來便利的生活與競爭優勢。然而蒐集、處理、運用等數據價值鏈活動對於市場競爭造成相當的影響，也成為事業為反競爭行為的誘因，而引起競爭法的關注，多國競爭執法機關亦已陸續展開調查或進行相關研究。由於使用者數據涉及個人資訊隱私，更因其係產業創新的動力之一，從而競爭法管制的合適性與必要性一直為爭議性議題，後續延伸出對於現有競爭法架構的相容性疑義。本文透過文獻與案例分析，從使用者數據的特色出發，探討使用者數據於競爭法框架下之爭議，包含與隱私法規的競合問題及衝擊現行制度之因應方式。基於競爭法適度管制的觀點，提出可能評估市場力量的方式與使用者數據可能形成的限制競爭或不公平競爭之風險類型。冀望對於我國公平交易法就此議題之剖析與因應有所助益，迎接數據經濟的浪潮。 / Big data analytics technology evolves rapidly and enhances the pace of the innovation of industries in the digital era. Utilizing user data, which is a sort of valuable assets, becomes more popular in business. The new technology brings consumers fitted products and convenience and creates competitive advantages to firms. However, collecting, processing and analyzing large sets of user data not only benefit the entities in the market but also impact market competition. Competition agencies around the world have engaged in related investigations and research on data and competition. The mainly concerns are whether the amount of user data may build a barrier to entry, and whether firms which control user data in a massive amount or essential to competition may have incentives to abuse their market power to foreclose marker. Moreover, because user data is one factor of fostering innovation and has a strong correlation with privacy, the suitability and the necessity of competition law to regulate data issue is still controversial. If competition law intervenes, we should further consider how to adapt it to the present regulation. By reviewing academic literature and practical cases, this thesis begins with the introduction of characteristics of user data, followed by the analysis of the controversy concerning user data under the framework of competition law, including the trade-off between it and privacy laws and possible adjustment to the present framework. This paper also discusses the way to assess market power and specific types of anticompetitive and unfair competition behaviors. Finally, this thesis concludes with a short remark. Hopefully it can provide some references for further discussion on this issue under the Fair Trade Act in Taiwan.

One of the recognised ways through which a firm may increase its market share or reorganise its presence in a market is through a merger. A merger occurs when independent firms combine their businesses. Section 12A of the Competition Act, 1998, provides two grounds in terms of which mergers must be evaluated by competition authorities. These are competition and public interest considerations. The Act is reticent on which, between the two considerations, should take precedence in the event that the two conflict. The anterior purpose of this study is therefore to provide an in-depth analysis on which consideration must take precedence in the event of conflict. On analysis, the majority of case law suggests that the competition considerations must take precedence. This observation is also buttressed by a significant amount of literature, which holds that in merger analysis, the public interests only play a secondary role to the competition inquiry. / Mercantile Law / LL.M. (Mercantile Law)