Die New York Times hat eine Meinung zum neuen Wettbewerbskommissar der Europäischen Kommission, Joaquín Almunia.
Voilà - “Past Clouds Future of Europe’s New Antitrust Enforcer”, 18. Februar 2010:
Antitrust specialists predicted that Mr. Almunia would contrast sharply with Ms. Kroes, who seemed to regard confrontation as part of her job description, but was often left tongue-tied by legal questions.
They also expect Mr. Almunia to try to make fewer headlines. Ms. Kroes was criticized for appearing to prejudge the outcome of investigations, as when she said something was “rotten” in the pharmaceutical sector before gathering evidence of actual wrongdoing. “It’s the end of show business competition policy,” said Nicolas Petit, a lecturer in competition law and economics at the University of Liege in Belgium.
It seems almost certain that Mr. Almunia’s upbeat nature will be tested by differences with the United States.
Christine Varney, the head of the antitrust division at the United States Justice Department, warned European regulators in a speech on Monday to restrict imposing obligations to the European Union on American companies that are doing business globally.
Na ja, so hat Frau Varney das nicht gesagt.
AAG Varney hat in einer geschliffenen Rede (“Coordinated Remedies: Convergence, Cooperation, And The Role Of Transparency”, Paris, 15. Februar 2010) unter anderem dazu appelliert, dass die weit über 100 Kartellbehörden dieser Welt bei Durchsetzung ihrer Kartellrechte die Setzung geographischer Schwerpunkte zulassen sollten.
Es handelt sich um eine allgemein formulierte und in der Sache legitime Forderung, die Unternehmen seit langem erheben. Sie klingt bei Frau Varney so:
Thus, while we [die Kartellbehörden] must all of course adhere to our own mandates and timing requirements, I suggest that we should keep our eyes open, in particular, for the conclusions of that agency with the greatest proportion of commerce and consumers at stake in a particular case. We should be particularly attentive to the opinion of the agency where the principal assets are located or the greatest revenue is earned, where the greatest impact will be felt, and where the thorniest enforcement issues may have already been addressed. This stems from a basic but important realization: that all antitrust enforcement agencies around the globe have an incentive to be vigilant policemen on behalf of their own customers, and that incentive is (or should be) strongest for the agency in whose jurisdiction the parties do the greatest amount of business. It should surely count for something that such an agency, after conducting a thorough investigation, decided on some form of relief or decided not to take action at all. Where we can look to the actions of such an agency, and, satisfying ourselves of our own obligations, align ourselves with that agency’s remedial choices, in my view, we should.
“Past clouds future”? No.
Übrigens, der von der NYT zitierte Nicolas Petit führt den Kartellrechtlerblog “Chillin’ Competition”; hier der Link zum lesenswerten Blog.
Sie haben einen Moment Zeit? Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:
- "The procedural fairness of the Commission’s decision-making process in competition cases has not been free from criticism."
- Patente und US-Kartellrecht: Es spricht das DOJ
- US-Kartellrecht: Convergence und divergence, Teil II. (AAG Varney in Fordham)
- Vereinte Nationen und Fordham
- Damien Neven: weitere drei Jahre "Chief Competition Economist" der Europäischen Kommission, Generaldirektion Wettbewerb