When the European Commission ultimately blocked the merger between American giant General Electrics and Honeywell in July 2001, this decision triggered a firestorm of criticism. Not only had the Commission just stopped a purely American transaction for the first time since the enactment of European Merger Regulation, but it also contradicted its American Counterpart, the US Department of Justice: The Americans had cleared the deal several months earlier. / In spite of constant cooperative efforts during the investigation, the two antitrust agencies could not reach a common position. When scholars and officials tried to find reasons for the divergence between the American and European decisions, they often criticized the Commission's general approach of focusing on competitors rather than on consumers. They further claimed that the Commission had used dubious economic models to block the merger. / This thesis tries to reinstate the reputation of the European Commission as a professional antitrust institution. The criticisms often left the impression that the Task Force of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission constituted a politically-orientated, rather than economic and legally-orientated, organ. It will be shown that this is actually not the case. / After having analyzed the Commission's decision in detail, and revealing both the strengths and weaknesses of its findings, the thesis will demonstrate that most of the criticisms have to be rejected, and that the Commission had a legal and economic basis in blocking the GE-Honeywell merger.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:QMM.78213 |
| Date | January 2002 |
| Creators | Foerderer, Jens Peter |
| Contributors | Janda, Richard (advisor) |
| Publisher | McGill University |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Coverage | Master of Laws (Institute of Comparative Law.) |
| Rights | All items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. |
| Relation | alephsysno: 001982969, proquestno: AAIMQ88120, Theses scanned by UMI/ProQuest. |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds