Zoekresultaat: 127 artikelen

x
Artikel

Access_open De Concept Leidraad Duurzaamheidsafspraken van de ACM: de ‘tragedy of the commons’ voorbij?

Tijdschrift Markt & Mededinging, Aflevering 4-5 2020
Trefwoorden Concept Leidraad Duurzaamheidsafspraken, duurzaamheid, ACM
Auteurs Pim Jansen en Sarah Beeston
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Op 9 juli 2020 heeft de ACM de Concept Leidraad Duurzaamheidsafspraken ter consultatie op haar website gepubliceerd. Hiermee beoogt de ACM te verduidelijken onder welke omstandigheden afspraken met een duurzame doelstelling met artikel 6 Mw en 101 VWEU verenigbaar zijn, inclusief op basis van de in het derde lid vervatte efficiencytoets. In deze bijdrage wordt eerst een historische parallel getrokken met de verhouding tussen de theorie van de ‘tragedy of the commons’ enerzijds en het Nederlandse poldermodel anderzijds. Vervolgens wordt de Leidraad gecontextualiseerd, beschreven en, tot slot, geanalyseerd.


Pim Jansen
Mr. dr. P. Jansen is Assistant Professor binnen de sectie Staats- en bestuursrecht van de Erasmus School of Law – Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (PhD, KU Leuven) en als advocaat verbonden aan de sectie Europees en mededingingsrecht van Van Doorne.

Sarah Beeston
Mr. S. Beeston is advocaat-partner en hoofd van de sectie Europees en mededingingsrecht van Van Doorne.
Annotatie

Het CK Telecoms-arrest: vier is (g)een magisch getal

Uitspraak van het Gerecht van 28 mei 2020, zaak T-399/16, ECLI:EU:T:2020:217 (CK Telecoms UK/Commissie)

Tijdschrift Markt & Mededinging, Aflevering 6 2020
Trefwoorden SIEC, Concentratieverordening, vier-naar-drie fusie, mobieletelecommunicatiesector
Auteurs Pepijn van Ginneken en Gaëlle Béquet
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Bespreking van het CK Telecoms-arrest van het Gerecht over de SIEC-test uit de Concentratieverordening.


Pepijn van Ginneken
Mr. P.P.J. van Ginneken is advocaat bij Brinkhof N.V.

Gaëlle Béquet
Mr. G.D.G.M.G. Béquet is advocaat bij Brinkhof N.V.
Article

Access_open How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice?

A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden prejudice, soft paternalism, empathy, liberalism, employment discrimination, access to goods and services
Auteurs Ioanna Tourkochoriti
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
Ioanna Tourkochoriti is Lecturer Above the Bar, NUI Galway School of Law.
Artikel

Pro-cycling’s doping pentiti

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden doping, cycling, cultural criminology, crime facilitative system, organisational crime
Auteurs Dr. mr. Roland Moerland en Giulio Soana
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Throughout the last decade several cyclists have published memoirs in which they account for their doping use. In previous literature such autobiographical accounts have been characterized as attempts of fallen sports stars to sanitize their spoiled public image. In contrast, the analysis in this article will show that the accounts are of relevance when it comes to understanding the problem of doping in professional cycling. Their accounts break the omertà regarding doping, providing insights about the motivation and opportunity structures behind doping and how such structures are endemic to the system of professional cycling.


Dr. mr. Roland Moerland
Dr. mr. Roland Moerland is universitair docent criminologie aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Maastricht.

Giulio Soana
Giulio Soana is afgestudeerd Master Forensica, Criminologie en Rechtspleging, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Maastricht.
Article

Access_open South African Mandatory Offers Regime: Assessing Minorities’ Leverage to Seek Recourse and Equal Treatment in Takeover Bids

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden company takeovers, mandatory offers, minority shareholders, equal treatment, acquisition procedure
Auteurs Paul Nkoane
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A firm intention announcement must be made when the offeror is able and willing to acquire securities, and when a mandatory offer must be made. When the firm intention announcement is implemented, some sort of a contract is created. This rule has helped to determine the particular time the offeror should be liable to minorities. The question of when the offeror should bear the obligation to implement mandatory offers in aborted takeovers is thus no more problematic. Previously, the courts wrestled with this issue, but delivered what appears to be unsatisfactory decisions. This article will discuss the effect of a firm intention announcement and the responsibility that attends the making of that announcement. It intends to illustrate the extent of liability the offeror must bear in the event of a lapsed takeover, before and after the making of the firm intention announcement. The article examines the manner in which takeover rules can be enforced, and whether the current measures afford minorities proper protection. This brings to light the issue of equal treatment in takeovers and the fallacy thereof. A minor appraisal of the takeover rules in two jurisdictions in Europe (the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) is conducted to assess how equal treatment for minorities is promoted. Due to the difficulty minorities may experience in enforcing equal treatment in company takeovers, the article advocates for the alteration of the current South African takeover procedure for the promotion of minorities’ interests and for establishing rules that provide the offeror adequate information.


Paul Nkoane
Paul Nkoane is lecturer at the College of Law of the University of South Africa in Pretoria.
Article

Access_open Ship Recycling Financial Instruments: A Tax or Not a Tax?

Some Brief Reflections

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Ship Recycling Fund, Ship Recycling License, green ship scrapping, EU concept of tax, earmarked tax
Auteurs Han Kogels en Ton Stevens
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article the question is reviewed whether two by the EU Commission proposed financial instruments to stimulate ‘green’ ship scrapping, (i) a Ship Recycling Fund (SRF) and (ii) a Ship Recycling License (SRL), might be qualified as a ‘tax’ under Article 192(2) TFEU. Qualification as such a “tax” would mean that the EU Commission can only introduce such a financial instrument with unanimity voting. The authors first explore the concept of ‘tax’ in the TFEU in general and in Article 192(2) TFEU in particular. Based on this analysis, the authors conclude that levies paid to an SRF might be qualified as an ‘earmarked tax’ falling within the definition of a ‘fiscal provision’ in the meaning of Article 192(2) TFEU, which means that levies to such a fund can only be introduced by unanimity voting. The SRL fee consists of two elements: (i) a fee to cover administrative expenses and (ii) a contribution to a savings account. The fee to cover administrative expenses is qualified by the authors as a retribution that should not be qualified as a fiscal provision in the meaning of Article 192(2) TFEU. The contribution to a blocked savings account can neither be qualified as a tax nor as a retribution. Therefore, the SRL fee can be introduced without unanimity voting by the EU Council.


Han Kogels
H.A. Kogels is Emeritus professor of European tax law Erasmus School of Law.

Ton Stevens
A.J.A. Stevens is Professor of corporation tax law Tilburg University and of counsel Loyens & Loeff, Rotterdam. He was previously holding the chair of international tax law at Erasmus School of Law and initially involved in the ship recycling financial instrument project but did not participate in the drafting of the final report.
Article

Access_open The Relationship between Empirical Legal Studies and Doctrinal Legal Research

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden empirical legal studies, legal research methods, doctrinal legal research, new legal realism, critical legal studies, law and policy
Auteurs Gareth Davies
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article considers how empirical legal studies (ELS) and doctrinal legal research (DLR) interact. Rather than seeing them as competitors that are methodologically independent and static, it suggests that they are interdependent activities, which may each be changed by interaction with the other, and that this change brings both opportunities and threats. For ELS, the article argues that DLR should properly be understood as part of its theoretical framework, yet in practice little attention is given to doctrine in empirical work. Paying more attention to DLR and legal frames generally would help ELS meet the common criticism that it is under-theorised and excessively policy oriented. On the other hand, an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking, might lead to loss of status for ELS in policy circles and mainstream social science. For DLR, ELS offers a chance for it to escape the threat of insular sterility and irrelevance and to participate in a founded commentary on the world. The risk, however, is that in tailoring legal analysis to what can be empirically researched legal scholars become less analytically ambitious and more safe, and their traditionally important role as a source of socially relevant critique is weakened. Inevitably, in offering different ways of moving to normative conclusions about the law, ELS and DLR pose challenges to each other, and meeting those challenges will require sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection.


Gareth Davies
Gareth Davies is Professor of European Law at the Faculty of Law of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Researching elites at the margins of research ethics frameworks

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2019
Trefwoorden code of ethics, corporate crime, research ethics, gaining access, interviewing elites
Auteurs Daniel Beizsley PhD
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    For social scientists undertaking critical research on elites in organisational contexts securing access is a challenging exercise that may rely on the use of several access strategies over extended periods. This process is further complicated by the existence of research ethics frameworks that establish boundaries to access strategies, posing dilemmas on how to best balance access needs with a commitment to ethical practices. This article focuses on such dilemmas – or the ‘ethics of access’ – through a reflection on PhD fieldwork during 2016-2017 in Luxembourg spent researching the European Investment Bank. The paper will conclude by calling for an overhaul of existing frameworks in order to foster more research on elites.


Daniel Beizsley PhD
Daniel Beizsley is a PhD candidate on the European Commission funded Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC) programme supervised by Utrecht University and ELTE University.
Artikel

Top-down and out?

Reassessing the labelling approach in the light of corporate deviance

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 2 2019
Trefwoorden labelling, corporate crime, moral entrepreneurs, peer group, late modernity
Auteurs Anna Merz M.A.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Multi-national corporations are increasingly facing attention and disapproval by different actors, including authorities, public and (non-) commercial organizations. Digital globalization and especially social media as a low-cost, highly interactive and multidirectional platform shape a unique context for this rising attention. In the literature, much attention has been devoted to top-down approaches and strategies that corporations use to avoid stigmatization and sanctioning of their behaviour. Reactions to corporate harm are, however, seldom researched from a labelling perspective. As a result, corporations are not considered as objects towards whom labelling is targeted but rather as actors who hamper such processes and who, as moral entrepreneurs, influence which behaviour is labelled deviant. Based on theoretical analysis of literature and case studies, this article will discuss how the process of labelling has changed in light of the digitalized, late-modern society and consequently, how the process should be revisited to be applicable for corporate deviance. Given a diversification of moral entrepreneurs and increasingly dependency of labelling and meaning-making on the online sphere, two new forms of labelling are introduced that specifically target institutions; that is bottom-up and horizontal labelling.


Anna Merz M.A.
Anna Merz is promovendus aan de Sectie Criminologie van de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open The New Dutch Model Investment Agreement: On the Road to Sustainability or Keeping up Appearances?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden Dutch model BIT, foreign direct investment, bilateral investment treaties, investor-to-state dispute settlement, sustainable development goals
Auteurs Alessandra Arcuri en Bart-Jaap Verbeek
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In 2019, the Dutch government presented a New Model Investment Agreement that seeks to contribute to the sustainability and inclusivity of future Dutch trade and investment policy. This article offers a critical analysis of the most relevant parts of the revised model text in order to appraise to what extent it could promote sustainability and inclusivity. It starts by providing an overview of the Dutch BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty) programme, where the role of the Netherlands as a favourite conduit country for global FDI is highlighted. In the article, we identify the reasons why the Netherlands became a preferred jurisdiction for foreign investors and the negative implications for governments and their policy space to advance sustainable development. The 2019 model text is expressly set out to achieve a fairer system and to protect ‘sustainable investment in the interest of development’. While displaying a welcome engagement with key values of sustainable development, this article identifies a number of weaknesses of the 2019 model text. Some of the most criticised substantive and procedural provisions are being reproduced in the model text, including the reiteration of investors’ legitimate expectation as an enforceable right, the inclusion of an umbrella clause, and the unaltered broad coverage of investments. Most notably, the model text continues to marginalise the interests of investment-affected communities and stakeholders, while bestowing exclusive rights and privileges on foreign investors. The article concludes by hinting at possible reforms to better align existing and future Dutch investment treaties with the sustainable development goals.


Alessandra Arcuri
Alessandra Arcuri is Professor of Inclusive Global Law and Governance, Erasmus School of Law (ESL), Erasmus Initiative Dynamics of Inclusive Prosperity, Erasmus University Rotterdam, arcuri@law.eur.nl.

Bart-Jaap Verbeek
Bart-Jaap Verbeek is Researcher at Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (SOMO) and PhD Candidate Political Science at the Radboud University.
Article

Access_open Waste Away. Examining Systemic Drivers of Global Waste Trafficking Based on a Comparative Analysis of Two Dutch Cases

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden environmental crime, waste industry, shipbreaking, waste trafficking, environmental enforcement
Auteurs Karin van Wingerde en Lieselot Bisschop
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The increasing volume of waste generated globally is one of the most prominent environmental issues we face today. Companies responsible for the treatment or disposal of waste are therefore among the key actors in fostering a sustainable future. Yet the waste industry has often been characterised as a criminogenic one, causing environmental harm which disproportionately impacts the world’s most vulnerable regions and populations. In this article, we illustrate how companies operating in global supply chains exploit legal and enforcement asymmetries and market complexities to trade waste with countries where facilities for environmentally sound treatment and disposal of waste are lacking. We draw on two contemporary cases of corporate misconduct in the Global South by companies with operating headquarters in the Global North: Seatrade and Probo Koala. We compare these cases building on theories about corporate and environmental crime and its enforcement. This explorative comparative analysis aims to identify the key drivers and dynamics of illegal waste dumping, while also exploring innovative ways to make the waste sector more environmentally responsible and prevent the future externalisation of environmental harm.


Karin van Wingerde
Karin van Wingerde is Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Lieselot Bisschop
Lieselot Bisschop is Associate Professor, Department of Criminology and Erasmus Initiative on Dynamics of Inclusive Prosperity, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open The Potential of the Dutch Corporate Governance Model for Sustainable Governance and Long Term Stakeholder Value

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden corporate governance, company law, stakeholders, Dutch Corporate Governance Code, long-termism
Auteurs Manuel Lokin en Jeroen Veldman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article addresses the question of how the Dutch regulatory and institutional setting enables policy coherence, specifically with regard to safeguarding stakeholders’ interests and promoting sustainable governance. To address this question, we engage with idiosyncratic theoretical notions in the Dutch corporate governance model. We follow the evolution of these notions in statutory company law and case law, their development in the Dutch Corporate Governance Code and their relation to the Enterprise Chamber as a unique institution. We establish how these theoretical views and practical institutions present significant means by which stakeholder concerns may be represented in the operation of company law and corporate governance more broadly and provide a number of ways in which these institutions and their operation can be further developed.


Manuel Lokin
Manuel Lokin is Professor of Company Law at the University of Utrecht and lawyer at Stibbe, Amsterdam.

Jeroen Veldman
Jeroen Veldman is Visiting Professor at the Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation at Mines ParisTech in Paris, France and Honorary Senior Visiting Fellow at Cass Business School in London, UK.
Artikel

The Imperfect International Sales Law

Time for a New Go or Better Keeping the Status Quo?

Tijdschrift Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht, Aflevering 9 2019
Trefwoorden CISG, imperfections of the current international sales law, reform, supplement, CISG 2.0
Auteurs Prof. mr. A.U. Janssen en N.G. Ahuja
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A series of imperfections in the CISG touching upon various areas are laid out thereby prompting the question of whether the Convention ought to be reformed. Two possibilities, namely supplementing the CISG with additional hard law instruments and drafting a new convention, i.e. CISG 2.0 are discussed and evaluated.


Prof. mr. A.U. Janssen
Prof. mr. A.U. Janssen is a Professor of Civil Law and European Private Law at the Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

N.G. Ahuja
N.G. Ahuja is a Doctorate Candidate in Law at City University of Hong Kong.
Article

Access_open Commercial Litigation in Europe in Transformation: The Case of the Netherlands Commercial Court

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden international business courts, Netherlands Commercial Court, choice of court, recognition and enforcements of judgements
Auteurs Eddy Bauw
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The judicial landscape in Europe for commercial litigation is changing rapidly. Many EU countries are establishing international business courts or have done so recently. Unmistakably, the approaching Brexit has had an effect on this development. In the last decades England and Wales – more precise, the Commercial Court in London - has built up a leading position as the most popular jurisdiction for resolving commercial disputes. The central question for the coming years will be what effect the new commercial courts in practice will have on the current dominance of English law and the leading position of the London court. In this article I address this question by focusing on the development of a new commercial court in the Netherlands: the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC).


Eddy Bauw
Professor of Private Law and Administration of Justice at Molengraaff Institute for Private Law and Montaigne Centre for Rule of Law and Administration of Justice, Utrecht University. Substitute judge at the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden and the Court of Appeal of The Hague.
Editorial

Access_open International Business Courts in Europe and Beyond: A Global Competition for Justice?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden international business courts, justice innovation, justice competition, global commercial litigation, private international law
Auteurs Xandra Kramer en John Sorabji
Auteursinformatie

Xandra Kramer
Xandra Kramer, Professor of Private Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, and of Private International Law, Utrecht University.

John Sorabji
John Sorabji, Senior Teaching Fellow, UCL, London/Principal Legal Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls.
Article

Access_open Matchmaking International Commercial Courts and Lawyers’ Preferences in Europe

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2019
Trefwoorden choice of court, commercial court, lawyers’ preferences, survey on lawyers, international court
Auteurs Erlis Themeli
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have taken concrete steps to design and develop international commercial courts. Most of the projects claim to be building courts that match the preferences of court users. They also try to challenge England and Wales, which evidence suggests is the most attractive jurisdiction in the EU. For the success of these projects, it is important that their proposed courts corresponds with the expectations of the parties, but also manages to attract some of the litigants that go to London. This article argues that lawyers are the most important group of choice makers, and that their preferences are not sufficiently matched by the new courts. Lawyers have certain litigation service and court perception preferences. And while the new courts improve their litigation service, they do not sufficiently addressed these court perception preferences.


Erlis Themeli
Postdoc, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Control of Relative Market Power in Competition Law

An Instrument to Implement the Unfair Trading Practices Directive?

Tijdschrift Markt & Mededinging, Aflevering 4 2019
Auteurs Jochen Glöckner
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On April 2019 the Directive on Unfair Trading Practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain has entered into force. In particular the remedies that the Member States are supposed to offer seem to be designed after the blueprint of competition law enforcement, and the practices deemed “unfair” in this Directive are closely related to abusive practices under Article 102 TFEU. While such practices are typically based on an economic dependence, no dominant position as required by Article 102 TFEU will be found. So, the question is whether an expansion of the scope of control of unilateral conduct under competition law might be the way to implement the Directive.
    Germany has a long-standing tradition with respect to the expansion of the scope of control of abusive conduct to undertakings with less than a dominant position. Following a brief introduction that outlines the contents of the Directive (I.) this contribution is going to give a picture of the provisions on control of so-called “relative market power”, i.e. a position of independence not versus all competitors and the opposite market side as defined by the ECJ, but only in the relation to individual trading partners under German competition law (II.), and finish with an outline of the structural problems that might stand in the way of implementing the new rules with a simple application or amendment of the competition law provisions on relative market power (III.)


Jochen Glöckner
Prof. Dr. iur., J. Glöckner LL.M. (USA), Chair for German and European Private and Economic Law, Universität Konstanz; Judge at the Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe.
Artikel

Pye v. United Kingdom: Hoe het constitutionele goederenrecht een kans miste onbillijke verjaringsverkrijgingen tegen te gaan

Tijdschrift Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht, Aflevering 7-8 2019
Trefwoorden verkrijging door verjaring, adverse possession, Pye, openbare registers, constitutioneel goederenrecht
Auteurs Mr. dr. B. Hoops
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In Pye besliste het EHRM dat het Engelse equivalent van verjaringsverkrijgingen niet in strijd was met art. 1 Eerste Protocol bij het EVRM. Het EHRM hield hierbij onvoldoende rekening met de verschillen tussen verjaringszaken. Dit artikel toont aan hoe een meer genuanceerde beoordeling onbillijke van billijke verjaringsverkrijgingen had kunnen scheiden.


Mr. dr. B. Hoops
Mr. dr. B. Hoops is universitair docent aan de Vakgroep privaatrecht en notarieel recht van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Artikel

Access_open De achterkant van het openbaar bod

Over de opkomst, ontwikkeling en normering van de pre-wired back-end

Tijdschrift Maandblad voor Ondernemingsrecht, Aflevering 5-6 2019
Trefwoorden openbaar bod, pre-wired back-end, minderheidsaandeelhouders, activa/passiva-transactie, fusie
Auteurs Mr. J. Barneveld
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Pre-wired back-end structuren zijn in de overnamepraktijk ontwikkeld om na een openbaar bod tot 100% controle te komen. In dit artikel staan de opkomst en normering van die structuren centraal. Daarbij wordt bijzondere aandacht besteed aan de market practice om back-end-transacties aan additionele voorwaarden te onderwerpen.


Mr. J. Barneveld
Mr. dr. J. Barneveld is advocaat bij De Brauw in Amsterdam en dit jaar werkzaam bij Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York.
Artikel

Het mededingingsrechtelijke speelveld bij bestuursakkoorden

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 2 2019
Trefwoorden bestuursakkoorden, mededingingsrecht, Unietrouw, nuttig effect, wetsvoorstel duurzaamheidsinitiatieven
Auteurs Mr. G.J. van Midden
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Afspraken die overheden en ondernemingen in bestuursakkoorden maken kunnen in strijd komen met de (Europese) mededingingsregels. Daarbij lopen niet alleen de ondernemingen een risico, ook overheden riskeren het verwijt tot mededingingsbeperkende gedragingen ‘aan te zetten’ en daarmee de nuttige werking van de mededingingsregels in gevaar te brengen. In een recent wetsvoorstel heeft de regering een wettelijk systeem voorgesteld, waarmee duurzaamheidsinitiatieven van de mededingingsregels kunnen worden uitgezonderd. Dit wetsvoorstel lijkt ook interessant voor bestuursakkoorden. Het is echter onzeker of deze wet in lijn is met het Europese recht. Alternatieven, waaronder de leer van de inherente beperkingen, zijn denkbaar. Zekerheid hierover zal echter van de Commissie of het Hof van Justitie moeten komen.


Mr. G.J. van Midden
Mr. G.J. (Gijs) van Midden is EU-jurist bij de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State.
Toont 1 - 20 van 127 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.