Nachtrag zu “Kartellrecht auf Chinesisch” vom 27. Oktober 2009:
Auf Daniel Sokols “Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog” ist eine Analyse eines weiteren Falles zu lesen: Wentong Zheng, “China’s First Court Decision under the Antimonopoly Law: A Misreading of the Law?”
Zitat:
… As we know, the drafters of the AML heavily borrowed terms and concepts from the antitrust law of the U.S. and EU – exclusive dealing’ among one of them. But the vast majority of the Chinese public – and perhaps a significant majority of lawyers and judges, too – are not familiar with the business contexts from which those borrowed terms and concepts arise. Given the terseness of the AML text, they would have difficulties understanding what those terms and concepts really mean. When an average person in China (lawyers and judges included) reads the AML and sees the words ‘restriction,’ ‘transaction counterparts,’ and ‘deal’ juxtaposed against one another in the same sentence, it is tempting for him or her to misread the law by concluding that the sentence may somehow describe the complained conducts …
Nachtrag zum Nachtrag: Handelsblatt, 30. Oktober 2009, “Konkurriere, wenn Du kannst!”
Sie haben einen Moment Zeit? Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:
- Kartellrecht auf Chinesisch
- Nachtrag – mehr Transparenz im EU-Kartellverfahren?
- Die Gerüchteküche der Koalitionsverhandlungen – hier: Regulierung vs. Kartellrecht
- Wer erklärt's dem Richter? Das EG-Kartellrecht und die Justiz
- Nachtrag Koalitionsvertrag: Die Entflechtung ("Zerschlagung") von Unternehmen im allgemeinen Kartellrecht?