Foreign direct investments, european law appliance on electrolux.
FDI – 2nd Law Assignment
Merger Control
15-10-2013
1. EU competition law sometimes has extraterritorial impact. For instance when a company that is situated outside the European Union makes agreements with companies that are situated in the EU. This is found in the cases United Brands Co. v. Commission1 and Europemballage Corp and Continental Can Co. Inc. V. Commission2
United brands is an American company which exports the ‘Chiquita’ bananas globally, including the EU. The Court has ruled that the company was abusing their dominant position.
Once selected European distributors/banana plantation operators have ripened bananas, they were only sold to retailers within the national markets. It was forbidden to sell to other countries. This restriction was reinforced by the fact that bananas were only sold when ripe. Therefore the possibility for cross-border trading was eliminated (bananas are perishable when ripe). This is an infringement of article 101.3 United brands has a dominant position, because they are the only ones supplying the well-known ‘Chiquita bananas’. Furthermore, they also restrict trade amongst countries when they demand that their retailers only sell ripe bananas. They also charged high prices to consumers in certain areas, which are not allowed according to article 101.4 Last but not least they refused to deliver their product to a Danish company.
The second case that can be referred when looking at the extraterritorial impact of EU competition law is Europeanballage Corp and Continental Can Co. Inc. V. Commission5. Continental Can Co. (CCC) was in the ninety seventies the biggest producer of metal packaging (cans) globally. In 1969 they have obtained an 85,8% share of a German undertaking. CCC agreed with the German undertaking that they would establish a Belgian based subsidiary that would take over the significant share in the German company and also another can-making
Merger Control
15-10-2013
1. EU competition law sometimes has extraterritorial impact. For instance when a company that is situated outside the European Union makes agreements with companies that are situated in the EU. This is found in the cases United Brands Co. v. Commission1 and Europemballage Corp and Continental Can Co. Inc. V. Commission2
United brands is an American company which exports the ‘Chiquita’ bananas globally, including the EU. The Court has ruled that the company was abusing their dominant position.
Once selected European distributors/banana plantation operators have ripened bananas, they were only sold to retailers within the national markets. It was forbidden to sell to other countries. This restriction was reinforced by the fact that bananas were only sold when ripe. Therefore the possibility for cross-border trading was eliminated (bananas are perishable when ripe). This is an infringement of article 101.3 United brands has a dominant position, because they are the only ones supplying the well-known ‘Chiquita bananas’. Furthermore, they also restrict trade amongst countries when they demand that their retailers only sell ripe bananas. They also charged high prices to consumers in certain areas, which are not allowed according to article 101.4 Last but not least they refused to deliver their product to a Danish company.
The second case that can be referred when looking at the extraterritorial impact of EU competition law is Europeanballage Corp and Continental Can Co. Inc. V. Commission5. Continental Can Co. (CCC) was in the ninety seventies the biggest producer of metal packaging (cans) globally. In 1969 they have obtained an 85,8% share of a German undertaking. CCC agreed with the German undertaking that they would establish a Belgian based subsidiary that would take over the significant share in the German company and also another can-making
Bibliography: Davis, A. (2013, 05 31). Asia Risk, Emir, Asifma. Consulté le 10 12, 2013, sur Risk.net: http://www.risk.net/asia-risk/news/2271791/extraterritorial-eu-legislation-likely-to-be-particularly-onerous-on-asia-asifma European Commission. (s.d.). Cartels Competition Cases. Consulté le 10 12, 2013, sur Europa.eu: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html European Commission. (s.d.). Cartels Competition Leniency. Consulté le 10 12, 2013, sur Europa.eu: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/leniency/leniency.html European Commission. (2010, 04 01). Competition Handbooks, EU Competition Law, Rules Applicable to Merger Control. Consulté le 10 12, 2013, sur Europa.eu: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/legislation/merger_compilation.pdf European Commission. (s.d.). DG Competition, Article 82 of the EC treaty. Consulté le 10 12, 2013, sur Europa.eu: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art82_en.html European Commission. (2012 йил 05-12). Press Release Database, Antitrust Monitors. Retrieved 2013 йил 12-10 from Europa.eu: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1317_en.htm European Commission. (2013, 07 10). Press Release Database, Antritrust Wire Harnesses. Consulté le 10 12, 2013, sur Europa.eu: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-673_en.htm