Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scope of Application of Merger Control Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Chinese Merger Control Law

Part of the book series: Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition ((MSIC,volume 2))

  • 812 Accesses

Abstract

After having summarised the merger decisions that MOFCOM has published until December 2013, the following chapters will position the written merger control law and MOFCOM’s enforcement practice into the broader context of competition policy. As discussed above in Chap. 5, Chinese merger control encompasses a number of different policy goals, including industrial policy considerations, and MOFCOM’s enforcement practice has to fulfil the benchmarks that are inherent in the Chinese Constitution and the AML itself. The practical implementation should be transparent and grant legal certainty, as required by the principle of the rule of law. Further, MOFCOM should achieve an appropriate balance between the conflicting goals of Chinese merger control. These two criteria will, in the following, constitute the substantive standards against which MOFCOM’s enforcement practice is measured.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Wang, X., Commentary on the AML (in Chinese), 2008, p. 79 et seq.

  2. 2.

    In EU competition law, the term “undertaking” is defined as “every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed”; see, for instance, ECJ, Judgment of 23 April 1991, Case C-41/90, Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH, [1991] ECR I-1979, 2016 (para. 21).

  3. 3.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 61.

  4. 4.

    See Healey, in: Drexl et al. (eds.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, 2011, p. 122, 128 et seq.

  5. 5.

    Lorenz/Liu, X., RIW 2009, 33, 35.

  6. 6.

    Lorenz/Liu, X., RIW 2009, 33, 36.

  7. 7.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 61; Wang, X., Commentary on the AML (in Chinese), 2008, p. 79.

  8. 8.

    Such approach is consistent with the ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Analysis, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc316.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, at section I. B. Comment 2, p. 2, which sets forth that merger reviews shall apply “regardless of how the transaction is structured”.

  9. 9.

    Article 173 Company Law differentiates between mergers by absorption (where one business operator is fully absorbed by another business operator and ceases to exist) and mergers by new establishment (where all participating business operators merge to establish a new business operator and cease to exist as separate legal entities).

  10. 10.

    Johnston, 7/12 Competition Law Insight 8, 8 (2008); Taylor, 23/6 CLP 33, 34 et seq. (2009); see also Hatton/Cardwell, 9/6 Competition Law Insight 5, 6 (2010), on minority acquisitions under EU competition law and the potential implications arising out of cooperation and/or intense information flows between the involved parties.

  11. 11.

    国务院关于经营者集中申报的规定 (征求意见稿), see Chinese version at http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2008-03/27/content_930438.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  12. 12.

    ABA, Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law (eds.), Comments on Draft Notification Rules March 2008, 2008, http://apps.americanbar.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/abaprcscmergernotificationregcommentdraftfinalcommentscombo.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 6; Lorenz, China Contact 2008, 31, 32; Nicholson, 6/3 asialaw 34, 37 (2008).

  13. 13.

    经营者集中申报暂行办法 (征求意见稿), see Chinese version at http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/zcfb/200901/20090106011461.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  14. 14.

    Wei, D., 14 J. Int. Econ. L. 807, 815 (2011); Wu, Z., 75 Antitrust L. J. 73, 87 (2008–2009).

  15. 15.

    Furse, 31 E.C.L.R. 98, 99 (2010) at FN 10; NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 117.

  16. 16.

    See speech delivered by the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming) at the “International Symposium on the Enforcement of the AML in the New Economy” held at the Renmin University of China on 18 December 2010, http://www.antimonopolylaw.org/article/default.asp?id=3227 (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  17. 17.

    Bu, 31 E.C.L.R. 239, 242 (2010).

  18. 18.

    Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011.

  19. 19.

    Section 37(1) German GWB contains a number of different criteria for the qualification as a concentration. Control is deemed conferred by the possibility of exercising “decisive influence” on another undertaking, in particular through “(a) the ownership or the rights to use all or parts of the assets of the undertaking, or (b) the rights or contracts which confer decisive influence on the composition, voting or decisions of the organs of the undertaking” (Section 37(1) No. (2) German GWB). Moreover, merger control is also triggered if one undertaking acquires a substantial part of the assets of another undertaking (Section 37(1) No. (1) German GWB), acquires an equity interest in another undertaking exceeding 50 percent or 25 percent (Section 37(1) No. (3) German GWB), or has competitively significant influence on another undertaking (Section 37 (1) No. (4) German GWB).

  20. 20.

    Wang, X., in: Wang, X. (ed.), Wang Xiaoye on the Antitrust Law (in Chinese), 2010, p. 326, 332.

  21. 21.

    See Bachrack/Huang/Modrall, 36/4 CBR 18, 19 (2009).

  22. 22.

    MOFCOM, Alpha V/Savio, para. 8.

  23. 23.

    Ha/O’Brien/Chang, 8th Conditional Anti-monopoly Clearance, 2011, http://www.mayerbrown.com/de/publications/China-Announces-8th-Conditional-Anti-monopoly-Clearance-11-04-2011/, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  24. 24.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 117.

  25. 25.

    Meyer/Chen, Z., RIW 2009, 265, 267.

  26. 26.

    It has been speculated that the lack of statutory clarity in relation to the status of joint ventures could result from an interagency dispute between MOFCOM and SAIC over their respective jurisdiction; see Gao, Competition Law in China, 2011, http://acle.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/subsites/amsterdam-center-for-law--economics/cr-meetings/2011/papers/gao_paper.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 5.

  27. 27.

    Chen, Z., Probleme der europäischen Fusionskontrolle, 2008, p. 345, with an outlook on Chinese competition law; Ha/O’Brien, 6/5 asialaw 46, 47 (2008); Potter/Han/Toh, 7/2 asialaw 33, 33 (2009); Wu, Z., 75 Antitrust L. J. 73, 87 (2008–2009).

  28. 28.

    Meyer/Chen, Z., RIW 2009, 265, 266; Wang, X., RIW 2008, 417, 424.

  29. 29.

    See speech delivered by the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming) at the “Workshop on China’s Anti-Monopoly Law and Enforcement” held by ABA Section of Antitrust Law on 1 April 2011, video of speech available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle/china_workshop.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  30. 30.

    Commission Notice 98/C 66/01 on the concept of full-function joint ventures under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ C 66/1 as of 2 March 1998, para. 12.

  31. 31.

    Commission Notice 98/C 66/01 on the concept of full-function joint ventures under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ C 66/1 as of 2 March 1998, para. 13.

  32. 32.

    Bachrack/Huang/Modrall, 36/4 CBR 18, 19 (2009); Mitnick/Chen, Y./Emch, 23/3 Antitrust Magazine 53, 54 (2009), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440795&rec=1&srcabs=1439765, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  33. 33.

    Taylor, 23/6 CLP 33, 33 et seq. (2009).

  34. 34.

    Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011; see also Han/Pfromm, in: Fine, Frank L. (ed.), China Institute of International Antitrust and Investment, First Annual Antitrust Symposium 2013, 2013, p. 167, 172, who argue that that there is no “full functionality” requirement in China.

  35. 35.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 141 et seq.

  36. 36.

    国务院关于经营者集中申报标准的规定, see Chinese version at http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2008-08/04/content_1063769.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014, English translation at 22/7 CLP 115–116 (2008).

  37. 37.

    ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc588.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, at section II. B. Comment 1, p. 3; see also ICN Report on the Costs and Burdens of Multijurisdictional Merger Review, November 2004, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc332.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 11 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Interview on the “Provisions on the Reporting Threshold for Concentrations of Business Operators by the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council”, 4 August 2008, http://www.gov.cn/zwhd/2008-08/04/content_1063736.htm (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  39. 39.

    See Articles 51 (onshore transactions) and 53 (offshore transactions) M&A Rules 2006.

  40. 40.

    Farmer, 18 Tulane J. of Int’l & Comp. Law 1, 43 (2009), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1411727, last accessed 12 January 2014; see also Wang, X., in: Wang, X. (ed.), Wang Xiaoye on the Antitrust Law (in Chinese), 2010, p. 326, 329.

  41. 41.

    Lorenz, China Contact 2008, 31, 32; Vincent/Zhu, 22/7 CLP 42, 43 (2008).

  42. 42.

    Furse, 31 E.C.L.R. 98, 99 (2010); see also MOFCOM, Coca-Cola/Huiyuan, Q&A, para. 5.

  43. 43.

    ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc588.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, at section I. C. Comment 2, p. 2.

  44. 44.

    See, for instance, ABA, Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law (eds.), Comments on Draft Notification Rules March 2008, 2008, http://apps.americanbar.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/abaprcscmergernotificationregcommentdraftfinalcommentscombo.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 3 et seq.; Wang, P./Harris/Zhang, Y., Notification Thresholds, 2008, http://www.jonesday.com/new-merger-notification-thresholds-under-the-aml-published-08-06-2008/, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  45. 45.

    Cramer, Merger Review under AML, 2010, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1577839, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 18; Hamp-Lyons, 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 1577, 1607 (2009), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1507882, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  46. 46.

    Podszun, WuW 2010, 1128, 1134.

  47. 47.

    Interview on the “Provisions on the Reporting Threshold for Concentrations of Business Operators by the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council”, 4 August 2008, http://www.gov.cn/zwhd/2008-08/04/content_1063736.htm (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  48. 48.

    经营者集中申报办法, see Chinese version at http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/c/200911/20091106639149.html, last accessed 12 January 2014, English translation at 24/1 CLP 56–60 (2010).

  49. 49.

    Unfortunately, the Reporting Measures do not indicate which taxes and surcharges are regarded as “relevant”. Under the draft provision, i.e. Article 4(1) Draft Notification Measures January 2009, corporate income taxes and deductible value-added taxes could not be deducted from the revenues.

  50. 50.

    Voices have been raised to set the thresholds differently from sector to sector; see for instance, Mu/Xiao, Analysis of Merger Control Regime under the AML, 2010, http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical_xsyj201004009.aspx (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014, who suggest to limit the RMB 400 million threshold to the food and light industry only and to apply an RMB 800 million notification threshold to heavy industries and other industries such as energy, transport, postal service, construction, wholesale, and retail since these markets are regularly controlled by large-scale enterprises, and concentrations involving enterprises with less turnover are not likely to eliminate or restrict competition in the relevant markets. The State Council however considered that setting different thresholds for different sectors would unnecessarily complicate the actual application; see Interview on the “Provisions on the Reporting Threshold for Concentrations of Business Operators by the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council”, 4 August 2008, http://www.gov.cn/zwhd/2008-08/04/content_1063736.htm (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  51. 51.

    金融业经营者集中申报营业额计算办法, see Chinese version at http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/c/200907/20090706411691.html, last accessed 12 January 2014, English translation at 23/7 CLP 54–55 (2009).

  52. 52.

    Wang, P./Harris/Zhang, Y., Notification Thresholds, 2008, http://www.jonesday.com/new-merger-notification-thresholds-under-the-aml-published-08-06-2008/, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  53. 53.

    See speech delivered by the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming) at the “International Symposium on the Enforcement of the AML in the New Economy” held at the Renmin University of China on 18 December 2010, http://www.antimonopolylaw.org/article/default.asp?id=3227 (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  54. 54.

    ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc588.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, at section I. B. Comment 3, p. 1, propose that the relevant sales of the acquired party should generally be limited to the sales of the business(es) being acquired.

  55. 55.

    Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 142; Mitnick/Chen, Y./Emch, 23/3 Antitrust Magazine 53, 54 (2009), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440795&rec=1&srcabs=1439765, last accessed 12 January 2014; Wang, P./Zhang, Y., in: GCR (ed.), The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review 2010, http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/25/sections/90/chapters/943/china-merger-control, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  56. 56.

    Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011.

  57. 57.

    Bush, 54 Antitrust Bull. 87, 135 (2009).

  58. 58.

    Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011.

  59. 59.

    Such opinion is also shared by Chinese scholars; see, for instance, Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  60. 60.

    中华人民共和国立法法, see Chinese version at http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2003-01/21/content_699610.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014, English translation at http://www.gov.cn/english/laws/2005-08/20/content_29724.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  61. 61.

    Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  62. 62.

    ABA, Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law (eds.), Comments on Draft Notification Rules March 2008, 2008, http://apps.americanbar.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/abaprcscmergernotificationregcommentdraftfinalcommentscombo.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 10; Law, 22/6 CLP 10, 15 (2008); Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  63. 63.

    MOFCOM, Panasonic/Sanyo, para. 18 et seq.

  64. 64.

    MOFCOM, Glencore/Xstrata, para. 46.

  65. 65.

    ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures, available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc588.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, at section I. C. Comment 1, p. 2.

  66. 66.

    See, for instance, CFI, Judgment of 25 March 1999, Case T-102/96, Gencor Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, [1999] ECR II-753, 785 (para. 90).

  67. 67.

    Bu, 31 E.C.L.R. 239, 244 (2010).

  68. 68.

    Bush, AML: Unanswered Questions and Challenges, 2007, http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/at-source/07/10/Oct07-Bush10-18f.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 6.

  69. 69.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 7.

  70. 70.

    Furse, 31 E.C.L.R. 98, 99 (2010); Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 142.

  71. 71.

    See Taylor, 23/6 CLP 33, 36 (2009), and Wang, X., in: Wang, X. (ed.), Wang Xiaoye on the Antitrust Law (in Chinese), 2010, pp. 344, 346, on the potential implications of a Chinese prohibition of the BHP Billiton/Rio Tinto merger.

  72. 72.

    See Idot in: Drexl (ed.), The Future of Transnational Antitrust – From Comparative to Common Competition Law, 2003, pp. 63, 74 et seq. and 78 et seq. and Hamp-Lyons, 62 Vanderbilt Law Review 1577, 1590 et seq. (2009), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1507882, last accessed 12 January 2014, for discussions on possible developments on both institutional and substantive levels.

  73. 73.

    Terms of Reference of the EU-China Competition Policy Dialogue, 6 May 2004, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/cn2b_en.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014; see also Wu, Q., 18 Eur. L. J. 461, 465 et seq. (2012) on the development of the EU-China Competition Policy Dialogue.

  74. 74.

    See Madero Villarejo, Recent trends in EU merger control, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/speeches/text/sp2011_07_en.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 12, in a speech held at the 7th International Conference on Competition Law and Policy in Beijing. On 20 September 2012, the European Commission, NDRC, and SAIC have entered into a memorandum of understanding on antitrust cooperation, which also potentially covers cooperation in individual non-merger investigation cases.

  75. 75.

    Memorandum of Understanding on Antitrust and Antimonopoly Cooperation, 27 July 2011, available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/international-antitrust-and-consumer-protection-cooperation-agreements/110726mou-english.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  76. 76.

    Notwithstanding the progress achieved by the MoU, it has been criticised that it does not guarantee that the agencies will actually cooperate since both sides have to agree that cooperation is in their best interest; see Knox, 14/9 GCR 28, 29 (2011).

  77. 77.

    Guidance for Case Cooperation between the Ministry of Commerce and the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on Concentration of Undertakings (Merger) Cases, 29 November 2011, available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/federal-trade-commission-department-justice-meet-chinese-ministry-commerce-merger-enforcement/111129mofcom.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  78. 78.

    See, for purpose of comparison, the 2011 revised US-EU Best Practices on Cooperation in Merger Investigations, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/legislation/best_practices_2011_en.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, which include more detailed stipulations on the timing of the interagency communication and information to be exchanged between the agencies.

  79. 79.

    See speech delivered by Christine A. Varney, former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division of DoJ, on the occasion of the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/273347.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, who underlines that interagency cooperation in concrete cases would require the building of trust between the enforcement agencies and that the Memorandum of Understanding would be an important milestone in building such trust.

  80. 80.

    See Interview with the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming), The Antitrust Source, February 2011, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/antitrust_law/feb11_shangintrvw2_23f.authcheckdam.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 4.

  81. 81.

    See Press Conference on Main Issues of AML Implementation in 2011 hosted by MOFCOM on 27 December 2011, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/slfw/201112/20111207901483.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  82. 82.

    Cai/Wong, Antitrust tigers grow teeth, 2010, http://www.mallesons.com/publications/marketAlerts/2010/Chinasantitrusttigersgrowteeth/Pages/default.aspx, last accessed 12 January 2014; Zhang, X./Zhang, V., 6 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 477, 492 (2010).

  83. 83.

    Khemani, Application of Competition Law, 2002, http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcclpmisc25_en.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, pp. 2 and 36.

  84. 84.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 352.

  85. 85.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 353.

  86. 86.

    OECD (ed.), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: China, 2009, p. 144.

  87. 87.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 352.

  88. 88.

    Bush, 54 Antitrust Bull. 87, 113 (2009); Deng/Leonard, 22/2 Antitrust Magazine 73, 74 (2008), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1305627, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  89. 89.

    中华人民共和国企业国有资产法, see Chinese version at http://zwgk.zhaozhou.gov.cn/zwgk/News_View.asp?NewsID=779, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  90. 90.

    Healey, in: Drexl et al. (eds.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, 2011, pp. 122, 131 et seq.

  91. 91.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 34.

  92. 92.

    Ha/Hickin, 6/6 asialaw 26, 28 (2008); Moore, China gets powers to block takeovers between foreign companies, The Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2794053/China-gets-powers-to-block-takeovers-between-foreign-companies.html, last accessed 12 January 2014; Shan et al., China’s Anti-Monopoly Law: What is the Welfare Standard?, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1920885, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 7; Yang, F./Zhang, Z., 22/6 CLP 36 (2008).

  93. 93.

    Bush, 54 Antitrust Bull. 87, 114 (2009); Johnston, in: Johnston (ed.), Competition Law in China and Hong Kong, 2009, p. 37, 43; Nicholson, 6/3 asialaw 34, 35 (2008).

  94. 94.

    Healey, in: Drexl et al. (eds.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, 2011, p. 122, 135; Wang, X., Commentary on the AML (in Chinese), 2008, p. 51.

  95. 95.

    OECD (ed.), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: China, 2009, p. 144; this opinion was also expressed by Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  96. 96.

    Zheng, AML: Part 5, 2009, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2009/12/chinas-antimonopoly-lawone-year-down-part-5-a-de-facto-dualtrack-competition-regime-.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  97. 97.

    See, for instance, Brault/Chang, 14 Revue Lamy de la Concurrence 156, 159 (2008); Wang, X., RIW 2008, 417, 421.

  98. 98.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 34.

  99. 99.

    Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  100. 100.

    Wang, P./Harris/Zhang, Y., AML, 2007, http://jonesday.com/newsknowledge/publicationdetail.aspx?publication=4662, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  101. 101.

    Deng/Leonard, 22/2 Antitrust Magazine 73, 76 (2008), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1305627, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  102. 102.

    Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  103. 103.

    Bush, 35/1 CBR 46, 48 (2008).

  104. 104.

    Healey, in: Drexl et al. (eds.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, 2011, p. 122, 133.

  105. 105.

    NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 34. MOFCOM officials have also stated that Article 7 AML would not apply to merger control but rather to other forms of monopolistic conduct; see Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011.

  106. 106.

    See Interview with the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming), The Antitrust Source, February 2009, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_source/Feb09_ShangIntrvw2_26f.authcheckdam.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 3 et seq.; Press Conference on AML Implementation Issues hosted by MOFCOM on 12 August 2010, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/ai/201008/20100807078063.html?4245233051=4123207458 (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014; Press Conference on Main Issues of AML Implementation in 2011 hosted by MOFCOM on 27 December 2011, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/slfw/201112/20111207901483.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014; Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011.

  107. 107.

    Wang, X., in: Wang, X. (ed.), Wang Xiaoye on the Antitrust Law (in Chinese), 2010, pp. 326, 339 et seq.

  108. 108.

    Brault/Chang, 14 Revue Lamy de la Concurrence 156, 159 (2008); Deng/Leonard, 22/2 Antitrust Magazine 73, 73 (2008), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1305627, last accessed 12 January 2014; Farmer, 18 Tulane J. of Int’l & Comp. Law 1, 7 (2009), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1411727, last accessed 12 January 2014; Gao, Competition Law in China, 2011, http://acle.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/subsites/amsterdam-center-for-law--economics/cr-meetings/2011/papers/gao_paper.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 4, at FN 3; Lorenz/Liu, X., RIW 2009, 33, 36.

  109. 109.

    Wang, A., Might MIIT Become New Enforcement Authority?, 2012, http://www.mwe.com/China-Law-Alert-Focus-on-Competition-March-2012-03-26-2012/#4, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  110. 110.

    Huckerby/Wong, Internet regulation, 2011, http://www.mallesons.com/publications/marketAlerts/2011/Chinaproposesnewinternetregulation/Pages/default.aspx, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  111. 111.

    Wang, X., 75 Antitrust L. J. 133, 148 (2008–2009).

  112. 112.

    Wang, P./Harris/Zhang, Y., AML, 2007, http://jonesday.com/newsknowledge/publicationdetail.aspx?publication=4662, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  113. 113.

    Healey, in: Drexl et al. (eds.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, 2011, pp. 122, 130 et seq.

  114. 114.

    See Nee, Competition Law in China, 2010, p. 314; Zheng, 32 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 643, 712 (2010), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1738024, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  115. 115.

    Commission, Decision of 31 March 2011, Case No COMP/M.6082, OJ C 274/7 of 17 September 2011 – China National Bluestar/Elkem, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6082_20110331_20310_1967334_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  116. 116.

    Commission, Decision of 13 May 2011, Case No COMP/M.6151, OJ C 216/18 of 22 July 2011 – PetroChina/Ineos/JV, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6151_20110513_20310_1887043_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  117. 117.

    Commission, Decision of 19 May 2011, Case No COMP/M.6113, OJ C 177/1 of 17 June 2011 – DSM/Sinochem/JV, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6113_20110519_20310_1812856_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  118. 118.

    In general, the Commission follows a two-step approach when assessing the chain of control of SOEs: first, it establishes whether the relevant SOE has an independent power of decision, and, second, if this is not the case, it determines which is the ultimate state entity and which other undertakings owned by this entity need to be considered as one economic entity; see, for instance, Commission, Decision of 31 March 2011, Case No COMP/M.6082, OJ C 274/7 of 17 September 2011 – China National Bluestar/Elkem, para. 12, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6082_20110331_20310_1967334_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  119. 119.

    Commission, Decision of 31 March 2011, Case No COMP/M.6082, OJ C 274/7 of 17 September 2011 – China National Bluestar/Elkem, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6082_20110331_20310_1967334_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, para. 15.

  120. 120.

    Commission, Decision of 31 March 2011, Case No COMP/M.6082, OJ C 274/7 of 17 September 2011 – China National Bluestar/Elkem, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6082_20110331_20310_1967334_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, para. 18 et seq.; Commission, Decision of 19 May 2011, Case No COMP/M.6113, OJ C 177/1 of 17 June 2011 – DSM/Sinochem/JV, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6113_20110519_20310_1812856_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, para. 14.

  121. 121.

    Commission, Decision of 19 May 2011, Case No COMP/M.6113, OJ C 177/1 of 17 June 2011 – DSM/Sinochem/JV, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6113_20110519_20310_1812856_EN.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, para. 15.

  122. 122.

    Stemsrud, 32 E.C.L.R. 481, 481 (2011).

  123. 123.

    See also NPC Standing Committee Legislative Affairs Commission, Office for Economic Law (ed.), Commentary on AML (in Chinese), 2007, p. 8.

  124. 124.

    企业国有产权交易操作规则, see Chinese version at http://www.gov.cn/gzdt/2009-06/25/content_1350113.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  125. 125.

    国务院关于促进企业兼并重组的意见, see Chinese version at http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2010-09/06/content_1696450.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  126. 126.

    Owen/Sun, S./Zheng, 75 Antitrust L. J. 231, 246 (2008–2009), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1483273, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  127. 127.

    Johnston, 7/12 Competition Law Insight 8, 9 (2008); Wang, J./Chen, A., Competition law fuels fears over enforcement, South China Morning Post, 2 August 2008; Zheng, AML: Part 5, 2009, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2009/12/chinas-antimonopoly-lawone-year-down-part-5-a-de-facto-dualtrack-competition-regime-.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  128. 128.

    Wei, J. et al., China Antitrust (Unicom/Netcom), 2009, http://www.hoganlovells.co.uk/files/Publication/d614a44e-5001-4785-8576-e5309e868043/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/83263da6-9b5f-4042-8f6c-555f54594bdd/ChinaAntitrust_May 1109.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 2.

  129. 129.

    Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  130. 130.

    Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  131. 131.

    Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  132. 132.

    Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014. The views on the facts of the case, however, vary. For instance, Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011, indicated that the merger was notified and approved by MOFCOM retroactively. In contrast, Zhu and Sun (AMB), Interview on 27 October 2011, specified that prior consultations with MOFCOM would have taken place in the course of which MOFCOM had informally approved the merger in advance. If controversies exist regarding the exact course of events, it can however be safely asserted that the merger China Unicom/China Netcom did not duly undergo the formal notification process as required by law.

  133. 133.

    See Wang, X./Su, in: Zimmer (ed.), The Goals of Competition Law, 2012, p. 379, 391.

  134. 134.

    Masseli, GRUR Int. 2010, 183, 184.

  135. 135.

    Zheng, AML: Part 5, 2009, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2009/12/chinas-antimonopoly-lawone-year-down-part-5-a-de-facto-dualtrack-competition-regime-.html, last accessed 12 January 2014. See also Healey, in: Drexl et al. (eds.), More Common Ground for International Competition Law?, 2011, p. 122, 134, who makes reference to a number of allegedly non-notified SOE merger cases. One SOE consolidation however reportedly complied with the AML, namely the merger between the two major state-owned airlines China Eastern Airlines and Shanghai Airlines in December 2009; see Harris et al., Anti-Monopoly Law, 2011, p. 198 and Zheng, 32 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 643, 712 (2010), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1738024, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  136. 136.

    Yin, Merger Control, 2010, http://www.asiancompetitionforum.org/docman/power-point-slides.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  137. 137.

    See Press Conference on AML Implementation Issues hosted by MOFCOM on 12 August 2010, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/ai/201008/20100807078063.html?4245233051=4123207458 (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  138. 138.

    Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  139. 139.

    See SASAC’s website with a chronological list of all consolidations of the centrally controlled SOEs and the respective press releases, http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n1180/n1226/n2665/index.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  140. 140.

    Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014; Wang, X./Su, in: Zimmer (ed.), The Goals of Competition Law, 2012, p. 379, 392.

  141. 141.

    See speech delivered by the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming) at the “International Symposium on the Enforcement of the AML in the New Economy” held at the Renmin University of China on 18 December 2010, http://www.antimonopolylaw.org/article/default.asp?id=3227 (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  142. 142.

    Gao, Competition Law in China, 2011, http://acle.uva.nl/binaries/content/assets/subsites/amsterdam-center-for-law--economics/cr-meetings/2011/papers/gao_paper.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 2; Johnston, 9/1 Competition Law Insight 13, 13 (2010); Wang, B., MOFCOM: China Unicom/China Netcom merger suspected of violating AML, The Economic Observer, 1 May 2009, http://tech.163.com/09/0501/10/587JON9U000915BE.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  143. 143.

    Taylor, 24/2 CLP 8, 8 (2010).

  144. 144.

    See Interview with the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming), The Antitrust Source, February 2009, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_source/Feb09_ShangIntrvw2_26f.authcheckdam.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 3 et seq.; Press Conference on AML Implementation Issues hosted by MOFCOM on 12 August 2010, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/ai/201008/20100807078063.html?4245233051=4123207458 (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014; Press Conference on Main Issues of AML Implementation in 2011 hosted by MOFCOM on 27 December 2011, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/slfw/201112/20111207901483.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  145. 145.

    See Interview with the Director General of the AMB (Shang Ming), The Antitrust Source, February 2011, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/antitrust_law/feb11_shangintrvw2_23f.authcheckdam.pdf, last accessed 12 January 2014, p. 5.

  146. 146.

    Zheng, AML: Part 6, 2010, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2010/01/chinas-antimonopoly-lawone-year-down-part-6-bigger-is-better-tensions-between-industrial-policy-and-.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  147. 147.

    Sun, M., Competition Advocacy, 2011, http://www.asiancompetitionforum.org/docman/powerpoint-slide.html, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  148. 148.

    See MOFCOM’s press release at http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/xxfb/201007/20100707021876.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  149. 149.

    See MOFCOM’s press release of 31 August 2010 at http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/xxfb/201008/20100807112138.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  150. 150.

    See MOFCOM’s press release of 13 December 2011 at http://fldj.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/xxfb/201112/20111207875980.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  151. 151.

    See Press Conference on Main Issues of AML Implementation in 2011 hosted by MOFCOM on 27 December 2011, http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/ae/slfw/201112/20111207901483.html (in Chinese), last accessed 12 January 2014.

  152. 152.

    See Gao, Jiajia, Competition Law in China: From Merger Control Onwards, speech given at the 7th Annual Competition & Regulation Meeting on “Competition Policy for Emerging Economies: When and How?”, 20 May 2011; Mao (CASS), Interview on 25 October 2011.

  153. 153.

    See NDRC: China Unicom and China Telecom Under Investigation, The Economic Observer, 9 November 2011, http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/2011/1109/215349.shtml, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  154. 154.

    See, for instance, Ning/Sun/Liu, China Telecom and China Unicom under Antitrust Investigation, 2011, http://www.chinalawinsight.com/2011/11/articles/corporate/antitrust-competition/earlier-rumor-confirmed-china-telecom-and-china-unicom-under-antitrust-investigation/, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  155. 155.

    See Chinese liquor makers fined for fixing prices, Shanghai Daily, 20 February 2013, http://www.china.org.cn/business/2013-02/20/content_28004354.htm, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  156. 156.

    MOFCOM, GE China/Shenhua, para. 14.

  157. 157.

    Ha et al., China Antitrust Moves Up a Gear, 2011, http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=11808&nid=6, last accessed 12 January 2014.

  158. 158.

    See, for instance, Johnston, in: Johnston (ed.), Competition Law in China and Hong Kong, 2009, p. 37, 43, at FN 22.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Munich, Germany

    Tingting Weinreich-Zhao

Authors
  1. Tingting Weinreich-Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weinreich-Zhao, T. (2015). Scope of Application of Merger Control Law. In: Chinese Merger Control Law. Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43868-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation