Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Merger Remedies in a Small Market Economy: Empirical Evidence from the Baltic States Cover

Merger Remedies in a Small Market Economy: Empirical Evidence from the Baltic States

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
Volume 6 (2013): Issue 1 (June 2013)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Sep 2013
References

References

  1. 1. Baarslag, Marieke, Gulbahar Tezel, and Saskia Weerheim. “The Dutch merger remedy experience.”. 30(9) (2009): 447-469.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. 2. Black, Oliver. “Competition law in Central and Eastern Europe.”. 14(3) (1993): 129-134.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. 3. Butans, Maris. “The Latvian Competition Council provisionally agrees to clear a merger if behavioral remedies are adopted (Sentor Farm Aptiekas / Recipe Plus).”26666 (2009).
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. 4. Calvino, Nadia. “When do Mergers Raise Concerns? An Analysis of the Assessment Carried out by the European Commission under the New Merger Regulation.”2(6) (2011): 521-528.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. 5. Eichhorn, Kaarli. “The Estonian Competition Authority cleared a merger in the cider market with a commitment not to increase production above specified levels (A. Le Coq/Finelin).”20956 (2003).
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. 6. Eichhorn, Kaarli. “The Estonian Competition Authority clears a merger in phase II in the markets of wholesale broadband access and retail broadband access with divestiture remedies (Elion/MicroLink).”20953 (2005).
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. 7. Gal, Michal S.. Harvard University Press, 2003.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. 8. Gal, Michal S. “Merger Policy for Small and Micro Jurisdictions”: 61-124. In:. Konkurrensverket, 2012.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. 9. Gal, Michal S. “Size Does Matter: General Policy Prescriptions for Optimal Competition Rules in Small Economies.”74 (2000-2001): 1437-1478.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. 10. Geradin, Damien, and David Henry. “Competition Law in the New Member States - Where Do We Come From? Where Do We Go?”: 273-309. In: Damien Geradin, ed.. Intersentia, 2005.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. 11. Ginter, Carri and Mari Matjus. “Assessment of non-horizontal mergers in Estonia.”. 31(12) (2010): 504-508.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. 12. Hoehn, Thomas and Suzanne Rab. “UK merger remedies: convergence or conflict with Europe? A comparative assessment of remedies in UK mergers.”. 30(2) (2009): 74-94.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. 13. Hoehn, Thomas, Suzanne Rab, and Grant Saggers. “‘Breaking up is hard to do’: National merger remedies in the information and communication industries.”30(5) (2009): 255-276.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. 14. Horn, Henrik, and Johan Stennek. “EU merger control and small member states interests”: 83-119. In:. Konkurrensverket, 2002.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. 15. Kalaus, Martti. “Estonia: the new Competition Act introduces full merger control.”. 23(6) (2002): 304-310.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. 16. Kalaus, Tanel. “The Estonian Competition Authority issues its first merger prohibition taking into account both previous acquisitions and potential future acquisitions in the pharmacy services sector (Terve Pere Apteek/Saku Apteek).”19964 (2008).
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. 17. Këllezi, Pranvera, and Christophe Rapin. “Merger remedies and competition law: An overview of EU and national case law.”43382 (2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. 18. Little, Cormac. “Remedies under Irish merger control rules.”30(12) (2009): 600-603.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. 19. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared an acquisition in the market of distribution of strong alcoholic beverages with remedies, including divestiture and application of non-discriminatory pricing (Mineraliniai vandenys/Stumbras).”21032 (2003).
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. 20. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared an acquisition in the strong alcoholic beverages related market with divestiture remedy (Alita/Anykščių vynas).”21036 (2004).
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. 21. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared a merger in the markets of concrete with remedies, including commitment of nondiscriminatory pricing and various contractual provisions (Betoneta/Markučiai).”21031 (2003).
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. 22. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared in phase II a merger in the breweries market with remedies, including divestiture and certain business behavioural commitments (Carlsberg/Kalnapilis at al.).”21019 (2000).
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. 23. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council clears a merger in the fixed, mobile and other related telecommunications markets with a commitment to notify any further structural changes (Telia/Sonera)”,21023 (2002).
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. 24. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council clears a concentration in the wholesale and retail markets for broadband services with structural and behavioural remedies (Elion/MicroLink).”21037 (2005).
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. 25. Makauskaite, Agne “The Lithuanian Competition Council clears in phase II a merger in the markets of fixed and mobile communications with structural and behavioural remedies (TeliaSonera/Omnitel).”21033 (2003).
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. 26. Malinauskaite, Jurgita. “Development of merger control in the Baltic countries: over 10 years of experience: Part 1.”32(3) (2011): 77-85.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. 27. Malinauskaite, Jurgita. “Development of merger control in the Baltic countries: over 10 years of experience: Part 2.”32(3) (2011): 109-115.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. 28. Malinauskaite, Jurgita. “Efficiency tests in the merger control regimes of the Baltic countries: myth or reality.”. 18(4) (2007): 136-146.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. 29. Paas, Katri. “Implications of the Smallness of an Economy for Merger Remedies.”XV (2008): 94-103.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. 30. Paas-Mohando, Katri. “Do Small Economies Need Specific Rules for Substantive Aspects of Merger Control?”34(5) (2013): 260-266.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. 31. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian NCA clears a merger in the telecommunications sector with remedies including granting of access to infrastructure (Telia Sonera).”20973 (2002).
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. 32. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian NCA cleared a merger in the alcoholic beverages distribution sector subject to remedies including granting of access to production and information (AV&D).”20992 (2007).
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. 33. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian Competition Authority clears a merger in the roadworks sector subject to behavioural remedies relating to procurement and non-discrimination obligations (A.C.B. / 8 CBR).”19966 (2008).
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. 34. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian Competition Council clears a merger in the markets for data transmission services and Internet access services subject to divestiture remedies (Lattelecom/Microlink Latvia).”20979 (2005).
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. 35. Svetlicinii, Alexandr, and Külliki Lugenberg. “Merger remedies in a small market economy: the Estonian experience.”. 33(10) (2012): 475-481.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. 36. Thielert, Julia, and Maarten Pieter Schinkel. “Estonia’s competition policy: a critical evaluation towards EU accession.”24(4) (2003): 165-175.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. 37. Veidemane Bērziņa, Zane. “The Latvian Competition Council approves acquisition by a holding company of a number of importers and distributors of alcoholic beverages after imposing conditions (SPV Distributor / MONO).”32061 (2009).
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. 38. Virtanen, Dalia. “The new Competition Act in Lithuania.”21(1) (2000): 30-36.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. 1. LTCA, 27.05.2004. No. 1S-80
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. 2. LVCA, 02.06.2008. No. 3217/08/10/2.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. 3. EECA, 11.11.2003. No. 38-KO.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. 4. LTCA, 25.09.2003. No. 1S-101.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  43. 5. LTCA09.11.2000. No. 123.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. 6. Official Journal, 2008, no. C 267.
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. 7. Official Gazette, 2001, no. 56, 332.
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. 8(November 2008) // http://www.competitioncommission. org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/noninquiry/ rep_pub/rules_and_guide/pdf/cc8.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. 9. EECA, 21.10.2005. No. 47-KO.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. 10. LTCA, 27.10.2005. No. 1S-122
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  49. 11. LTCA07.10.2011. No. 1S-208.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. 12. EECA, 07.08.2003. No. 26-KO.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. 13. CJEU, 1979. No. 85/76.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. 14Report for the fourth ICN annual conference (June 2005) // http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc323.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. 15. LVCA, 30.09.2005. No. 497/05/10/3
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. 16. LTCA, 02.10.2003. No. 1S-107.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. 17. EECA, 02.11.2007. No. 44-KO.
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. 18. Document DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2010)74 (December 2010) // http://kt.gov.lt/naujienos/docs_oecd/global_forum_2011_1.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. 19. Document DAF/COMP/WP3(2011)2 (October 2011).
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. 20. Document DAF/COMP(2004)21 (December 2004) // http://www.oecd.org/competition/mergers/34305995.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. 21. Official Journal, 2004, L24/1.
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. 22. LVCA, 23.01.2009. No. 2754/08/06/21
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. 23. LVCA, 08.10.2007. No. 1300/07/06/18.
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. 24. LVCA19.06.2009. No. 651/09/06/4
    Search in Google Scholar
  63. 25. EECA, 25.09.2002. No. 58-KO.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  64. 26. EU Commission2002. No. COMP/M2803.
    Search in Google Scholar
  65. 27. LTCA, 18.07.2002. No. 82
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  66. 28. LTCA, 11.12.2003. No. 1S-140.
    Search in Google Scholar
  67. 29. LVCA, 13.08.2002. No. 124.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  68. 30. EECA, 08.05.2008. No. 3.1-8/08-020KO.
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. 31United Brands. CJEU, 1978. No. 27/76.
    Search in Google Scholar
  70. 32(June 2011) // http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/272350.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2013-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2029-0454
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 26
Published on: Sep 5, 2013
Published by: Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
EU competition law,
merger control,
merger remedies,
national competition authority,
Estonia,
Latvia,
Lithuania
Related subjects:
Law,
Law, other,
Social sciences,
Political science,
Political science, other

© 2013 Alexandr Svetlicinii, Külliki Lugenberg, published by Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Volume 6 (2013): Issue 1 (June 2013)
Next article