Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Groups of Undertakings and Competition — Regulatory Approaches in Europe —

  • Articles
  • Published:
European Business Organization Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cf. for example the prohibition of monopolization in section 2 of the Sherman Act of 1890 and the FTC Act as first acts of specific regulation of concentrations.

  2. See Rittner, Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, 6th ed. (Heidelberg: Müller 1999) § 13 marginal numbers 3 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  3. On this issue and other effects of the formation of groups see the contribution of Kirchner in: Klaus J. Hopt, Christa Jessel-Holst and Katharina Pistor (eds.), Emergence, Behavior, and Regulation of Company Groups in Transition Economies in Legal and Economic Perspective (forthcoming).

  4. On this cf. Dreher, Konglomerate Zusammenschlüsse, Verbotsvermutungen und Widerlegungsgründe (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1987); BKartA, Megafusionen — Eine neue Herausforderung für das Kartellrecht, Dokumentation der IX. internationalen Kartellkonferenz 1999 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf. for example the rules on taxation of the skimming of excess profits.

  6. With respect to the transition process in Eastern Europe see Ojala, The Competition Law of Central and Eastern Europe (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1999) pp. 204 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  7. On the respective legal situation in Germany see Dreher, “Wirtschaftsrecht und Wirtschaftsaufsicht”, in: 50 Jahre BGH: Festgabe aus der Wissenschaft (C.-W. Canaris [ed.]) volume II at IV. (Munich: Beck 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  8. See section 2.2 supra.

  9. Cf. the short references to competition law in the reports in Wymeersch (ed.), Groups of Companies in the EEC (Berlin: de Gruyter 1993).

  10. Monopolkommission, Hauptgutachten VII 1986/87 text numbers 796 et seq.; Kübler/Schmidt, Gesellschaftsrecht und Konzentration (Berlin: Duncker &Humblot 1988); Rittner, “Gesellschaftsrecht und Unternehmenskonzentration”, ZGR (1990) 203; N örr, Die Republik der Wirtschaft: part I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999) pp. 201 et seq. and 253 et seq.

  11. See section 2.2 supra.

  12. Equally the Monopolkommission, supra n. 10, text number 799 number 2 and Rittner, supra n. 10, 206.

  13. In favor: Monopolkommission, supra n. 10, text numbers 839 et seq.; opposed: Rittner, supra n. 10,212.

  14. See Dreher, in: Immenga/Mestm äcker, G WB: Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschr änkungen: Kommentar, 3rd ed. (Munich: Beck 2001) annotations before §§ 97 et seq. Marginal numbers 2 and 60.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Case C-389/92 Ballast Needam Groep [1994] ECR I-1289, para. 15; Case C-5/97 Ballast Needam Groep [1997] ECR I-7549, para. 12 = WuW/E Verg 29; ECJ of 2 December 1999 — Case C-176/98 Holst [1999] ECR I-8607, paras. 27 et seq. = WuW/E Verg 296.

  16. Case C-44/96 Österr. Staatsdruckerei [1998] ECR I-114 para. 25 = WuW/E Verg 23; confirmed by the ECJ in Case C-360/96 Commune ofArnhem [1998] ECR I-6821, para. 55 = WuW/E Verg 166.

  17. Cf. Article 97 of the ECSC Treaty.

  18. See, in detail, Dreher, “Kartellrechtsvielfalt oder Kartellrechtseinheit in Europa? — Harmonisierungsbedarf und Harmonisierungsgrenzen für nationale Kartellrechte”, AG (1993) 437; id., “Gemeinsamer Europ äischer Markt — Einheitliche Wettbewerbsordnung?”, in: FIW (Forschungsinstitut für Wirschaftsverfassung und Wettbewerb) (ed.), Umbruch der Wettbewerbsordnung in Europa (Cologne: Heymanns 1995) 1; id., “Gemeineurop äisches Kartellrecht”, in: FS Söliner (Munich: Beck 2000) 217; Gerber, Law And Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (Oxford: Clarendon 1998) pp. 401 et seq.

  19. See Dreher, “Gemeineurop äisches Kartellrecht”, in: FS Söliner, ibid., 217, at pp. 223 et seq.

  20. On the additional question of the development of international competition rules and their relationship with trade policy, cf. Scherer, Competition Policies for an Integrated World Economy (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute 1994); OECD, Trade and Competition Policies, 1999; Dörn/Wilks (eds.), Comparative Competition Policy (Oxford: Clarendon 1996); Immenga, “Basic Principles for an International Competition Code”, in: Hope (ed.), Competition and Trade Policies (London: Routledge 1998) 46.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See section 5 infra.

  22. See e.g. Amato, Competition and the Bounds of Power (Oxford: Hart 1997); Möschel, “Schutzziele eines Wettbewerbsrechts”, in: FS Rittner (Munich: Beck 1991) 405; Bouterse, Competition and Integration — What Goals Count? (Deventer: Kluwer 1994) in particular on Article 81 (3) of the EC Treaty; Dreher, “Der Rang des Wettbewerbs im Europ äischen Gemeinschaftsrecht”, in: D örr/Dreher (eds.), Europa als Rechtsgemeinschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1997) 105 (also in WuW (1998) 656 et seq.); and on the relationship between competition and efficiency Dreher, Konglomerate Zusammenschlüsse, Verbotsvermutungen und Widerlegungsgründe (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1987) pp. 100 et seq.; Furse, “The Role of Competition Policy”, ECLR (1996) 250; Willimsky, “The Concept(s) of Competition”, ECLR (1997) 54, each with further references.

    Google Scholar 

  23. From the German cf. Rittner, Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, supra n. 2, § 5 marginal numbers 48 and 59 et seq.; Möschel, Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschr änkungen (Cologne: Heymanns 1983) marginal numbers 108 et seq.

  24. See section 4.1 supra.

  25. The law of the Member States is characterized by farther-reaching exceptions. See for example the new exemption for the central marketing of rights in sports events sub specie of Article 1 of the GWB; cf. Dreher, “Die 6. GWB-Novelle”, in: FIW (ed.), Schwerpunkte des Kartellrechts 1998 (Cologne: Heymanns 1999) 111, at p. 117.

  26. Cf. e.g. Cases 209-213/84, Asjes [1986] ECR 1425, at pp. 1465 et seq. = WuW/E EWG/MUV 730, 732; Case 45/85 Feuerversicherung [1987] ECR 405, at pp. 447,451 = WuW/E EWG/MUV 739 et seq.

  27. On the scope ratione materiae of the exemption see Regulation 26/62 OJ [1962] L 40 = WW (1963) 778, as amended by Regulation 49/62, OJ [1962] L 53; OJ [1962] Spec Ed 129 = WW(1963)846 et seq.

  28. ECJ of 15 December 1994 — Case C-250/92 Klim [1994] ECR I-5641 =EuZW(1995) 244.

  29. Cf., the ECJ decision in Feuerversicherung, supra n. 26.

  30. Cf., the ECJ decision in Asjes, supra n. 26.

  31. See also Regulation 141/62, OJ [1962] L 124/2751; OJ [1959-1962] Spec Ed 291 = WuW (1963) 848, adopted on the basis of Article 87 (now Article 83 EC) of the EC Treaty, and many subsequent regulations.

  32. Cf. the overview in Veelken, in: Immenga/Mestm ächer, EG- Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. I (Munich: Beck 1997) 398, with extensive references, and for an assessment of the block exemption policy Rittner, “Das europ äische Kartellrecht”, JZ (1996) 377, at pp. 380 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See section 2.1.2. supra.

  34. Cf. Article 6 of the GWB.

  35. Cf. in detail e.g. Bellamy/ Child, Common Market Law of Competition, 4th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1993) marginal numbers 4—038 et seq. and First Supplement, 1996, marginal number 4–040; Goyder, EC Competition Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon 1998) pp. 169 et seq., 463 et seq; each with further references.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cf. most recently European Commission, 23rd Report on competition policy (1993) text number 84.

  37. See e.g. Beeser, Strategische Allianzen im EU-Wettbewerbsrecht (Munich: Beck 1996) pp. 29 et seq. with further references.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hereto Rittner, supra n. 2, § 8 marginal number 26 with further references.

  39. Cf. e.g. Beeser, supra n. 37; Basedow/Jung, Strategische Allianzen (Munich: Beck 1993) pp. 138 et seq.; Ebenroth/Schick, “Vertikale Strategische Allianzen und Allianznetzwerke im europ äischen Recht”, EWS (1994) 217, each with further references.

  40. Regulation 4064/89, OJ [1989] L 395/1, with subsequent amendments (OJ [1990] L 257/13 and OJ [1997] L 61/1).

  41. On the “Verbundklausel”, i.e. the calculation of turnover of grouped undertakings, cf. Article 5 (4) of the Merger Regulation.

  42. Cf. Article 8 (4) of the Merger Regulation, and European Commission of 26 July 1997 WuW/E EU-V 167, 174 et seq. Blokker/TOYS ‘R” Us, OJ [1998] L 316/1.

  43. Cf. European Commission of 29 March 1995 WuW/E EV 2309; cf. most recently European Commission of 27 January 1999 WuW(1999) 372, OJ [1999] C 92/10.

  44. See e.g. Case 170/83 Hydrotherm [1984] ECR 2999, para. 11 = WuW/E EWG/MUV 657, 659.

  45. Case C-73/95 P Viho Europe v. Commission [1996] ECR I-5457, para. 16 = EuZW (1997) 84.

  46. Viho Europe v. Commission, supra n. 45, para. 17.

  47. Cf. hence the English notion of this regulatory approach of competition law as doctrine of the “group economic unit” or the “economic entity”; see e.g., Goyder, supra n. 35, at pp. 91 et seq.; van Bael/Bellis, Competition Law of the European Community, 3rd ed. (Bicester: CCH Europe 1994) § 308; Roth/Ackermann, in: Frankfurter Kommentar zum GWB, 3rd ed., 44th installment (November 1999), Article 81 of the EC Treaty, marginal numbers 65 and 209 et seq. These authors consider as missing the constituting element of “restriction of competition” rather than that of “undertaking”; from the German writings see e.g., Heitzer, Konzerne im Europ äischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Heidelberg: Recht und Wirtschaft 1999); Pohlmann, Der Unternehmensverbund im Europ äischen Kartellrecht (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot 1999).

  48. Article 8 (4); see section 4.4.2.3 supra.

  49. Cf. Möschel, Entflechtungen im Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschr änkungen (Tübingen: Mohr 1979) pp. 32 et seq. On the legal state in Germany cf. Rittner, supra n. 2, § 13 marginal number 11.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. Dreher, “Die wettbewerbsrechtliche Zul ässigkeit der Information über Marktdaten”, in: FIW (ed.), Bewertung und Zul ässigkeit von Marktinformationsverfahren (Cologne: Heymanns 1993) pp. 15 et seq. with further references; and most recently Bissocoli, “Trade Associations and Information Exchange under US Competition and EC Competition Law”, World Competition (2000) (23) 79.

    Google Scholar 

  51. On the specific question of e.g. the attribution of abusive conduct of subsidiary to parent companies, which may have to be answered, cf. e.g. Heitzer, supra n. 47, at pp. 171 et seq. with further references.

  52. Cf. for instance the comparative analysis by Wämser, Enforcement of Competitionlaw — A Comparison of the Legal and Factual Situation in Germany, the EEC and the USA (Frankfurt: Lang 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  53. By inserting Article 54 para. 1 2nd sentence into the GWB via its 6th amendment of 1 January 1999, the German legislator tried to react to the so-called “Roß- und Reiter-Problematik”. Pursuant to this article, upon request, the competition authority can start a procedure of its own motion to protect a complainant. Also, the newly introduced possibility of substantiation in the meaning of Article 294 para. 1 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure) in appeal proceedings against an order to disclose information is intended to improve the evidential position of the competition authority. By these means the identity of the complainant can possibly remain confidential.

  54. On the question of the creation of an EC competition authority in its own right with the aim of inter alia avoiding extra-competitive political influence on decisions cf. Dreher, “Do we need a European Competition Agency”, in: Wilson/ Rogowski (eds.), Challenges to European Legal Scholarship: Anglo-German Legal Essays (London: Blackstone 1996) pp. 95 et seq.; id., “Gemeinsamer Europäischer Markt — Einheitliche Wettbewerbsordnung?”, in: FIW (ed.), Umbruch der Wettbewerbsordnungen in Europa, supra n. 18, 1, at pp. 13 et seq.; Wilks, “Competition Policy in the European Union: Creating a Federal Agency?”, in: Dörn/Wilks (eds.), Comparative Competition Policy, supra n. 20, 225, each with further references.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cf. Articles 3 and 15 of Regulation 17/62 and Articles 8 and 14 of the Merger Regulation.

  56. Cf. in more detail e.g. Dannecker, in: Immenga/Mestmäcker, EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. II (Munich: Beck 1997) 1830 et seq.; and e.g. the penalty payment of 230 Million EURO for violation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty by cardboard producers, which was confirmed by the Court of First Instance: Case T-295/94 cartonboard [1998] ECR II-813 = WuW/E EU-R 87.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cf. Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ [1996] C 207/4 = EuZW (1997) 568; and Weitbrecht, “Die Kronzeugenmitteilung in EG-Kartellsachen”, EuZW (1997) 555; Lutz, “Amnestie für aufklärungsbereite Kartellanten?”, BB (2000) 677, at pp. 678 et seq.

  58. For Germany cf. Lutz, ibid., at pp. 679.

  59. Cf. Article 15 (4) of Regulation 17/62 and Article 14 (4) of the Merger Regulation.

  60. Cf. on this issue Rittner, supra n. 2, § 14 marginal number 2, with further references.

  61. Article 298 of the StGB (Criminal Code).

  62. Cf. e.g. Case T-24/90 Automec II [1992] ECR II-2223 = EuZW (1993) 103.

  63. Cf. generally Ojala, supra n. 6; OECD, Competition Law and Policy in the Baltic Countries (1999); World Bank (ed.), A Framework for the Design and Implementation of Competition Law and Policy (1999); Breidenbach (ed.), Handbuch Wirtschaft und Recht in Osteuropa, loose-leaf, 3 volumes (Munich: Beck state of 2000).

  64. Cf. the list in Breidenbach, ibid., vol. 1, BiH 0l syst. marginal number 22.

  65. Later it was partly amended; printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, WettbewerbsG 400 BG.

  66. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 272 et seq.; Bakardjieva, “Das neue Wettbewerbsgesetz in Bulgarien”, GRUR Int. (1999) 395.

  67. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 295 and in OECD, supra n. 63, 27; Sepp/Wrobel, “Besonderheiten der Wettbewerbspolitik in einem Transformationsland — Die Entwicklung der Wettbewerbsordnung in Estland als Beispiel”, WuW (2000) 26.

  68. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 338; OECD, supra n. 63, 59.

  69. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6,352; hereto Virtanen, “The new Competition Act in Lithuania”, ECLR (2000) 30; OECD, supra n. 63, 93.

  70. Printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, KartellG 400 KRO; hereto Pešut, in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, KRO Syst. 41 marginal numbers 1 et seq.; Krneta, “Das neue kroatische Kartellgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1996)913.

  71. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 368; as an appendix to the notice of the President of the Ministerial Council of 22 April 1997 on the publication of a revised version of the law against monopolistic practices, a consolidated version of the anti-monopoly law of 24 February 1990 was published; cf. on this issue Kawecki/Soltysiński, in: Breidenbach, supra n. 63, PL 42 syst, marginal numbers 1 et seq. (state of 1992); Soltysiński, “Competition Laws in a Country in Transition: Polish Experience”, in: Ullrich (ed.), Comparative Competition Law: Approaching an International System of Competition Law (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1998) 203; Planavova-Latanowicz/Harding, “The Control of Concentrations in the Czech Republic and Poland”, ECLR (1999) 265; Kepniski/Harding, “The New Polish Unfair Competition Law”, ECLR (1995) 487; “Bericht: Polen — Neufassung des Antimonopolgesetzes veröffentlicht, GRUR Int. (1997) 762; “Bericht: Polen — Novelle zum Antimonopolgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1995) 741; Wiszniewska, “Patentlizenzverträge im Lichte neuer Entwicklungen im polnischen Kartellrecht”, GRUR Int. (1996) 568; and Schulze, “Der rechtliche Rahmen der Wettbewerbspolitik und Privatisierung in Polen”, WuW (1991) 23.

  72. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 380; cf. “Bericht: Rumänien — neues Wettbewerbsgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1996) 1164; Zinsmeister/Vasile, “Romania’s New Competition Law”, ECLR (1998) 164.

  73. With amendments from 1995 and 1998; printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, WettbewerbsG 400 Rus; Olschewski/von Wistinghausen, ibid. Rus. Syst. 41 marginal numbers 1 et seq. (state of 1997); Hölzler, “Privatisierung und Einführung von Wettbewerb in Rußland”, in: Welfens/Gloede/Strohe/Wagner (eds.), Systemtransformation in Deutschland und Rußland (Heidelberg: Physica 1999) 173; von Wistinghausen, Preisaufsicht mit Mitteln des Kartellrechts in der russischen Föderation (Berlin: Spitz 1999); cf. also Yacheistova, “What may the Commonwealth of Independent States expect from Multilateral Competition Rules?”, World Competition (2000) 51.

  74. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6,401; on the situation in Slovakia cf. Verny, in: Breidenbach, supra n. 63, CS Syst. 41 marginal numbers 1 et seq. (state of 1994), who refers to a law from 1991; and Piltz, “Rechtsentwicklungen in Osteuropa — Am Beispiel tschechischen und slowakischen Kartellrechts”, in: Festschrift Vieregge (Berlin: de Gruyter 1995) 693.

  75. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 411.

  76. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 284; cf. “Bericht”, GRUR Int. (1991) 394; Verny, “Das neue Wirtschaftsrecht in der Tschechoslowakei”, EuZW (1992) 85, at p. 86; Schulze, “Das Kartellrecht in der Tschechoslowakei”, WuW (1992) 126; Piltz, “Rechtsentwicklungen in Osteuropa — Am Beispiel tschechischen und slowakischen Kartellrechts”, in: FS Vieregge, ibid., 693; Planavova-Latanowicz/Harding, “The Control of Concentrations in the Czech Republic and Poland”, ECLR (1999) 265.

  77. Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 311; and see Küpper, “Ungarns neues Wettbewerbsgesetz”, Osteuroparecht (1997) 45; Toth, “Competition Law in Hungary: Harmonization towards EU-Membership”, 1998 ECLR 358 et seq.; Hegyi, “Neuere Entwicklungen im Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht Ungarns unter Berücksichtigung der ungarischen Gruppenfreistellungsverordnung”, GRUR Int. (1999) 312; “Bericht: Ungarn — Neues Wettbewerbsgesetz”, GRUR lnt.(1996) 1165; on the earlier state of the law cf. Rittner, “Das ungarische Wettbewerbsrecht auf neuen Wegen”, WuW (1992) 24.

  78. Printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, Ukr WettbG 400; hereto “Bericht: Ukraine — Änderung und Ergänzung zum Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht”, GRUR Int. (1996) 756; Deringer, “Die Antimonopolpolitik der Ukraine”, WuW (1996) 788.

  79. See 5.2 supra.

  80. Cf. Hommelhoff, “Das italienische Kartellrecht — Bemerkungen aus deutscher Sicht”, in: 6 Jahrbuch für italienisches Recht (1993) 3; and Dreher, “Kartellrechtsvielfalt oder Kartellrechtseinheit in Europa?”, AG (1993) 437, at n. 1 and at p. 441 with further references.

  81. See under 6.2.1 infra.

  82. See, fundamentally, Rittner, Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg: Müller 1987) § 1 marginal numbers 36 et seq.; id., Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, supra n. 2, Introduction marginal number 9.

    Google Scholar 

  83. See in the German discussion, Rittner, “Das Kartellgesetz als die Magna Charta des Unternehmens?”, in: FS Raisch (Cologne: Heymanns 1995) 483; Dreher, “Das GWB als Magna Charta des Wettbewerbs oder als Einfallstor politischer Interessen”, WuW (1997) 949.

    Google Scholar 

  84. European Commission, White paper on modernization of the rules implementing articles 85 and 86 [now 81 and 82 EC] of the EC Treaty [OJ [ 1999] C 132/1 ], deems both aspects particularly important in countries in transition. This is due to the dominant positions derived from former monopolies of numerous undertakings and the widespread tendency to cartels in line with “traditions of planned economy”.

  85. Cf. e.g. on the Baltic States OECD, supra n. 63, 17.

  86. See section 4.4.3.2 supra.

  87. OJ [1999] L 335/1.

  88. OECD, supra n. 63.

  89. Ojala, supra n. 6.

  90. Cf. instead the Commission’s white paper, supra n. 84, and the contributions in Ehlermann/Laudati (eds.), Robert Schuman Centre Annual on European Competition Law (1996-1997).

  91. Cf. van den Bossche, “The International Dimension of E. C. Competition Law: the Case of the Europe Agreement”, ECLR (1997) 24; Schröter/Delsaux, in: Groeben/Thiesing/Ehlermann (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag, 5th ed. (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1997–1999) introductory remarks on Articles 85 — 89 marginal numbers 78 et seq.

  92. OJ [1993] L 348/1, at pp. 16 et seq.

  93. OJ [1996] L 208/24, printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 263.

  94. Annual aggregated turnover of the undertakings involved of less than 200 million EURO or affecting a maximum of 5 % of the relevant market.

  95. On the partnership and its legal bases cf. Dreher, “Die Beitrittspartnerschaft zwischen der Republik Polen und den europäischen Gemeinschaften und der Stand des europäischen Wirtschaftsrechts”, Osteuroparecht (1999) 36.

  96. OJ [1998] C 202/63; see also the Council decision of 30 March 1998 on the principles, priorities, interim objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership with the Republic of Poland, OJ [1998] L 121/6 and 8.

  97. OJ [1998] C 202/69.

  98. Council decision of 6 December 1999, OJ [1999] L 335/8, 10.

  99. Ibid., at p. 12.

  100. The Luxembourg competition law still dates from 1970.

  101. In detail Dreher, “Gemeineuropäisches Kartellrecht”, in: FS Söllner, supra n. 18, 217, in particular at p. 230.

  102. Cf. e.g. Monopolkommission Hauptgutachten XI (1994/1995) text number 133, at 147.

  103. Hereto Dreher, in: FIW, supra n. 18, at pp. 11 et seq.; Möschel, “Subsidiaritätsprinzip und Kartellrecht”, NJW (1995) 281; Jung, Subsidiarität im Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Heidelberg: Müller 1995); Schlecht, “Europäische Wettbewerbspolitik im Widerstreit zwischen Harmonisierung und Subsidiarität”, in: FS Mestmäcker (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1996) 747; 23rd EC competition report, text numbers 94, 189 et seq. and annex 394 et seq.

  104. See section 4.1 supra.

  105. See Dreher, “Wettbewerb oder Vereinheitlichung der Rechtsordnungen in Europa?”, JZ (1999) 105 et seq.; Monopolkommission, Sondergutachten 27: Systemwettbewerb, 1998; Hopt, “Kapitalmarktrecht und Aufsicht über Kapitalmarktintermediäre”, in: Grundmann (Hrsg.), Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts (2000) 307, 320 et seq.

  106. Cf. Dreher, in: FIW, supra n. 18, at pp. 4 et seq.; id., “Das deutsche Kartellrecht vor der Europäisiering”, WuW(1995) 881, at pp. 882 et seq.; id., supra n. 19, 231.

  107. Cf. the apparently different view of Ojala, supra n. 6, 96 et seq. and 242 et seq., without however elaborating on the proposed “policy-based approach” departing from the “rule-based approach”.

  108. On the question of a European competition authority in its own right see supra n. 54.

  109. A separate issue is the question of competition law as to the definition of the relevant market including the consideration of “actual or potential competition of undertakings with a seat within or outside the scope of this law” in the meaning of Article 19 para. 2 no. 2 of the GWB; On the question of the territorial extension of the relevant product market from the point of view of German merger control see BGH JZ (1996) 1022 with an annotation by Dreher.

  110. Cf. on the taking into consideration of competitiveness in the practice of Hungarian control of concentrations Erb/ Jahraus/ Mummert/ Schulz/ Voigt, Konsequenzen der Globalisierung für die Wettbewerbspolitik (Frankfurt: Lang 2000) pp. 135 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Grounds RegE 6. Gesetz zur Änderung des GWB, BTDrucks. 13/9720, 32.

  112. On this cf. e.g. Rehbinder, in: Immenga/Mestmäcker, supra n. 32, vol. I, Introduction marginal numbers 37 et seq. with further references.

  113. Following an application for an individual exemption.

  114. Article 6 of the GWB; cf. in addition the ministerial approval of cartels in the general interest pursuant to Article 8 of the GWB.

  115. On this cf. section 4.4.2.1 supra.

  116. Cf. e.g. Buxbaum and Soltysiński, in: Buxbaum/ Hertig/ Hirsch/ Hopt (eds.), European Economic and Business Law (Berlin: de Gruyter 1996) pp. 125 et seq. and 136 et seq.; Kollert und Deringer, in: FIW (eds.), Erfahrungen mit der Privatisierung von Monopolunternehmen (Cologne: Heymann 1999) pp. 55 et seq. and 59 et seq.; as well as Rittner, “Die Umgestaltung in Osteuropa als wirtschaftsrechtliches Problem”, WuW(1991) 95.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mainz, Germany

    Meinrad Dreher (Dr. iur, LL.M., Professor of Law)

Authors
  1. Meinrad Dreher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dreher, M. Groups of Undertakings and Competition — Regulatory Approaches in Europe —. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 2, 187–221 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752900000410

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752900000410

Keywords

Search

Navigation