« 2014年8月 | トップページ | 2014年10月 »



Chassis Use Agreement

「Chassis are used for the intermodal transportation of marine containers. FVLI and DCLI are chassis leasing companies that also manage chassis pools operating at the LA/LB port complex. FVLI and DCLI propose to enter a Chassis Use Agreement that would allow the interchange of chassis among the pools managed by each of FVLI and DCLI. The FVLI and DCLI pools will continue to compete for business, and leasing terms and rates will continue to be set independently by each chassis provider. A」


カナダ/Pay for Delay

リンク: Patent Litigation Settlement Agreements: A Canadian Perspective —A paper prepared for the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law Conference: Global Antitrust Challenges for the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tuesday, September 23, 2014. - Competition Bureau.

While the Bureau may, where appropriate, initially elect to evaluate a settlement under the criminal conspiracy provision of the Act, the Bureau may subsequently decide that circumstances warrant pursuing a remedy under the civil provisions of the Act at any time prior to referral of the matter to the DPP for prosecution.



リンク: (平成26年9月24日)株式会社吉野家資産管理サービスほか2社に対する勧告について:公正取引委員会.






リンク: 企業コンプライアンス:公正取引委員会.





リンク: ニュースリリース|横浜ゴム、米国パーカー・ハネフィン社からイタリアのマリンホース生産販売会社を買収.





リンク: Seven Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Hitachi Automotive Supply Ltd. Executives Indicted for Role in Conspiracy to Fix Prices.

Count two charges Kurisaki and Saito with knowingly conspiring to obstruct justice by destroying documents and corruptly persuading, and attempting to persuade others, to destroy documents.

Count three charges Saito with knowingly and corruptly persuading, and attempting to persuade, executives to destroy documents and delete electronic data that may contain evidence of antitrust crimes in the United States and elsewhere.





「IV – Conclusion」
「Provisions in a collective agreement concluded between, on the one side, an association of employers and, on the other side, trade unions representing employees and self-employed persons, which provide that self-employed persons who, on the basis of a contract for professional services, perform the same work for an employer as the workers who come within the scope of that collective labour agreement must receive a specific minimum fee fall:

– within the scope of Article 101 TFEU if they are entered into in the interests of and on behalf of self-employed persons;

– outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU if they are entered into in the interests of and on behalf of employees, whose employment and working conditions they directly improve. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the provisions at issue directly improve the employment and working conditions of employees, by genuinely and effectively preventing social dumping and not going beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.」

「As mentioned in point 1 above, it is settled case-law that agreements entered into within the framework of collective bargaining between employers and employees and intended to improve employment and working conditions must, by virtue of their nature and purpose, be regarded as falling outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU.」
「30. First, the status of self-employed persons and the status of workers are, for the purposes of the EU competition rules, fundamentally different and, ipso facto, cannot be equated.

31. Workers are not undertakings under the EU competition rules and Article 101 TFEU was not conceived to regulate labour relationships.

32. Conversely, self-employed persons are, under the EU competition rules, undertakings.  Accordingly, as mentioned above, a trade union acting on behalf of self-employed persons is to be regarded as an ‘association of undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

33. Plainly, there are good socio-economic reasons to restrict, or even to eliminate, wage competition among workers through collective bargaining.  However, the situation is different when it comes to agreements which have the object or effect of restricting or eliminating competition between undertakings.

34. Those are precisely the type of agreements to which Article 101 TFEU is intended to apply.」


中国/Mr. Confession

リンク: 'Mr. Confession' and his boss drive China's antitrust crusade | Reuters.

Inside those rooms, lawyers and executives describe meetings with the NDRC as "interrogations", where raised voices, flaring tempers and verbal reprimands are commonplace.
From interviews with more than two dozen attorneys, executives, and experts, who have been drawn into investigations with the NDRC's price supervision and anti-monopoly bureau, a picture emerges of a culture of intimidation under the leadership of Director General Xu Kunlin.


第170回 消費者委員会本会議 議事録 : 消費者委員会 - 内閣府

リンク: 第170回 消費者委員会本会議 議事録 : 消費者委員会 - 内閣府.

○消費者庁松本課徴金制度検討室企画官 1点目の自主申告による2分の1の減額という部分でございますけれども、ほかの法令、具体的には金融商品取引法のインサイダー取引とか一定の取引において、単独行為の違反であっても、違反をみずから事業者が見つけた場合には、これを改善するという、それを促進するインセンティブというところで設計がございまして、これに我々も景品表示法のもとで適合するのではないかということで置いております。一方で、違反したという部分がございますので、全額ということではなくて、2分の1ということで考えております。


○河上委員長 基本的には、措置命令と課徴金に関する手続というのは、別個に動いていると理解することになるのですか。

○消費者庁菅久審議官 考えておりますのは、例えば都道府県が調査している場合。1つは、今回の法改正を受けて都道府県が担当するのは県域内の違反行為となりますので、そもそも規模基準とかいろいろ考えますと、課徴金の対象になるものが少ないのではないかと思っています。ただ、都道府県が調査した途中の段階で、これが措置命令の後、課徴金納付命令の対象になり得ると判断した場合には、消費者庁にそこで通知ないし知らせてもらうと。そこから先、消費者庁が調査する。つまり、措置命令を都道府県が出して、その後受け取って課徴金額を計算するというのは実務上、非常にやりにくいですので、むしろ途中の段階でわかった場合には、消費者庁のほうに移管なり連絡をしてもらうことを想定しています。







リンク: CURIA - Documents.

MasterCard claimed (among other things) that the General Court had applied the wrong test: the correct test was that a restriction was objectively necessary if it was impossible or difficult to achieve the end in question without it. The CJEU dismissed that argument, confirming that a restriction is only objectively necessary if the beneficial goal it serves is impossible to achieve without it.

111    However, the alternatives on which the Commission may rely in the context of the assessment of the objective necessity of a restriction are not limited to the situation that would arise in the absence of the restriction in question but may also extend to other counterfactual hypotheses based, inter alia, on realistic situations that might arise in the absence of that restriction. The General Court was therefore correct in concluding, in paragraph 99 of the judgment under appeal, that the counterfactual hypothesis put forward by the Commission could be taken into account in the examination of the objective necessity of the MIF in so far as it was realistic and enabled the MasterCard system to be economically viable.



リンク: (平成26年9月11日)山形県庄内地区に所在する農業協同組合に対する警告等について:公正取引委員会.

5農協の前記第1の2(1)の行為は,山形中央会の上記求めを受けて行ったものであった。 中央会の事業(注3)については,原則として独占禁止法第8条第1号及び第4号は適用されないが,山形中央会の上記行為は,独占禁止法の適用除外に該当しないおそれがあり,独占禁止法に違反する行為につながるおそれがある

第73条の22 中央会は、その目的を達成するため、次に掲げる事業を行う。
一 組合の組織、事業及び経営の指導
二 組合の監査
三 組合に関する教育及び情報の提供
四 組合の連絡及び組合に関する紛争の調停
五 組合に関する調査及び研究
六 前各号の事業のほか、中央会の目的を達成するために必要な事業


第73条の23 全国中央会は、前条第1項各号の事業のほか、その事業の浸透徹底を図り、又は都道府県中央会の事業の総合調整を行うため、都道府県中央会の指導及び連絡に関する事業を行う。




リンク: (平成26年9月9日)鋼球の製造業者に対する排除措置命令及び課徴金納付命令について:公正取引委員会.



「the announcement of the new commissioners expected on Wednesday」







リンク: カラオケ白書.







« 2014年8月 | トップページ | 2014年10月 »