Difference between revisions of "Panama (1996, 1998)"

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Changed merger notification and total scoring)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Score = 21'''
+
'''Score = 18'''
  
''Governed by:'' Law 29 of February 1, 1996, whereby rules on the Protection of Competition are established and other measures are adopted (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”) and Executive Decree No. 31 of September 3, 1998 on Regulations of Title I (monopoly) and other provisions of Law 29 (hereinafter referred to as “Monopoly Decree”).  
+
''Governed by:'' Law 29 of February 1, 1996, whereby rules on the Protection of Competition are established and other measures are adopted (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>Own translation of Competition Act, as available at: http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Panama/L29.asp</ref> and Executive Decree No. 31 of September 3, 1998 on Regulations of Title I (monopoly) and other provisions of Law 29 (hereinafter referred to as “Monopoly Decree”).  
<ref>Own translation of Competition Act, as available at: http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Panama/L29.asp</ref>
+
<ref>Own translation of Monopoly Decree, as available at:
 +
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALBD/resources/500.pdf</ref>
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
Line 53: Line 54:
 
| Merger Notification
 
| Merger Notification
 
| Voluntary
 
| Voluntary
| 0
+
| 1
|  
+
| Chapter III of the Competition Act and Article 14 of the Monopoly Decree allow for voluntary notification of concentrations.
 
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
 
| Mandatory
 
| Mandatory
| 3
+
| 0
| Article 14 of the Decree says that prior verification of mergers is required.
+
|  
 
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
 
| Pre-merger
 
| Pre-merger
| 2
+
| 0
| Article 14 of the Decree says that prior verification of mergers is required.
+
|  
 
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|  
 
|  
 
| Post-merger
 
| Post-merger
| 0
+
|   1
|  
+
| Article 14 of the Monopoly Decree states that voluntary notification does not preclude companies from continuing in the concentration pending a decision by the Authority.
 
 
 
|- class="categorydivision"
 
|- class="categorydivision"

Revision as of 13:54, 30 June 2008

Score = 18

Governed by: Law 29 of February 1, 1996, whereby rules on the Protection of Competition are established and other measures are adopted (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)[1] and Executive Decree No. 31 of September 3, 1998 on Regulations of Title I (monopoly) and other provisions of Law 29 (hereinafter referred to as “Monopoly Decree”). [2]

Category Subcategory Score Comment
Scope Extraterritoriality 0
Remedies Fines 1 Article 112 allows fining for various violations of the Act.[3]
Prison Sentences 0
Divestitures 1 Article 26 allows Commission to divest improper mergers.
Private Enforcement 3rd Party Initiation 1 Article 142 gives any concerned person the capacity to file a claim.[4]
Remedies Available to 3rd Parties 1 Article 142 allows actions seeking compensation for damages.[5]
3rd Party Rights in Proceedings 0
Merger Notification Voluntary 1 Chapter III of the Competition Act and Article 14 of the Monopoly Decree allow for voluntary notification of concentrations.
Mandatory 0
Pre-merger 0
Post-merger 1 Article 14 of the Monopoly Decree states that voluntary notification does not preclude companies from continuing in the concentration pending a decision by the Authority.
Merger Assessment Dominance 0
Restriction of Competition 1 Article 19 prohibits mergers that have the effect of impeding competition.
Public Interest (Pro D) 0
Public Interest (Pro Authority) 0
Other 0
Efficiency 0
Dominance Limits Access 1 Article 14(e) prohibits “unilateral action consisting in refusing to sell or provide, to certain persons, goods or services.”
Abusive Acts 0
Price Setting 1 Article 14(b) prohibits prices setting.
Discriminatory Pricing 1 Article 8 prohibits discriminatory pricing.
Resale Price Maintenance 1 Article 14(b) prohibits resale price maintenance
Obstacles to Entry 1 Article 14(g) prohibits predatory actions taken to prevent a potential competitor from entering the market.
Efficiency Defense 1 All the relative monopolistic practices (Articles 8 and 14) can be allowed when they are justified in terms of economic efficiency.
Restrictive Trade Practices Price Fixing 1 Article 11(a) of the Act prohibits price fixing.
Tying 1 Article 14(c) prohibits tying arrangements.
Market Division 1 Article 11(c) prohibits market division.
Output Restraint 1 Article 11(b) prohibits output restraint.
Market Sharing 1 Article 14(a) prohibits market sharing.
Eliminating Competitors 1 Article 14(g) prohibits predatory actions taken to squeeze a competitor out of a market.
Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging 1 Article 11(d) prohibits bid rigging.
Supply Refusal 0
Efficiency Defense 1 All the relative monopolistic practices (Articles 8 and 14) can be allowed when they are justified in terms of economic efficiency.

References

  1. Own translation of Competition Act, as available at: http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Panama/L29.asp
  2. Own translation of Monopoly Decree, as available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALBD/resources/500.pdf
  3. FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp
  4. FTAA report, Inventory of Domestic Laws and Regulations relating to Competition Policy in the Western Hemisphere, March 22, 2002, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp
  5. Id