News RSS

Hungary: Logical inconsistency in Competition Act

Monday, 1 June 1998

There is currently no legislative history or legal commentary available to explain why the 'independence' requirement was not built into the merger control provisions in a uniform manner. The Competition Office has applied the law to the letter without regard to the resulting logical inconsistency. In this writer’s view, however, the apparent distinction drawn by the Competition Act between the second form of business concentration (acquisition of control) and the first and third forms (mergers and formation of a joint venture) is not compelling.

Intra-group immunity should be accorded consistently to all forms of business concentrations defined by the Competition Act since such intra-group consolidations (no matter what their form) are not a problem area the Competition Act seeks (or should seek) to prevent.

Adam Mattyus
Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber
Budapest

PREMIUM Subscription required to view this article

This content can only be accessed by PREMIUM GCR subscribers.

A premium subscription includes 10 issues of the journal, 2 signature surveys - The GCR100 and Rating Enforcement, 10 GCR special reports and full access to current and archived print & online content.

If you are a GCR subscriber, please login to access this content:

Law Business Research Ltd

87 Lancaster Road, London
W11 1QQ, UK
Queen's Award logo International Bar Association logo American Bar Association strategic partner logo

Copyright © 2012 Law Business Research Ltd. All rights reserved. | http://www.lbresearch.com

87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK | Tel: +44 207 908 1188 / Fax: +44 207 229 6910

http://www.globalcompetitionreview.com | editorial@globalcompetitionreview.com