Anti-trust law must not be undermined
The author has, for many years, in a number of contributions in law journals argued that the criterion “significantly restricting competition” in Article 5 para. 1 SCA should – for systemic reasons – be interpreted the same way as the respective element in Article 101 TFEU. This newspaper article is so to speak a last call in this respect, before the Swiss Federal Tribunal was going to decide in public this important matter for the future of Swiss competition policy.
Prager Dreifuss Newsletter – July 2016: Criminalizing corruption – New criminal provisions on private bribery
In the July 2016 newsletter, Dr. Urs Feller and Marcel Frey present the criminal provision combatting private bribery that has been transposed into the Swiss Criminal Code as of July 1, 2016. The authors review the background and scope of the criminal norm and give an outlook on the consequences and measures for private individuals and companies.
Global Financial Standards and Regulatory Reforms
Stefan Wandel discusses the evolution of global post-crisis standards in finance and takes a critical look at their effectiveness to prevent cross-border systemic risk. The analysis reveals specific deficiencies, which raise doubts as to the effectiveness of the reform efforts undertaken.
Merger control in Switzerland, market intelligence
Country report on merger control. Philipp and Bernhard discuss the latest trend in merger control in Switzerland.
“Zweimal hü und zweimal hott” beim Schweizer Kartellgericht
One of the most disputed question relating to Article 5 SCA on restrictive agreements concerns the test that triggers off the application of the provision. Under Article 101 TFEU the respective test is about whether a particular agreement has an “appreciable effect” on competition (“spürbare Wirkung”). The idea of the criterion is to identify agreements that have only a “minor effect” on competition and need therefore not be further investigated. Concerning Swiss law, a number of commentators have argued that the criterion about significantly restricting competition stands for a more ambitious test. i.e. a test requiring a decision on the “appropriateness” of a restraint on competition in the sense of the American Rule of Reason. Within only two years, the Swiss Administrative Court of Justice has decided twice in one way and twice in the other.