La loi sur la naturalisation allemande entre en vigueur

A new law on nationality has been enforced. Foreigners have gained German nationality earlier and have been able to retain their country's passport.

https://p. dw. com/p/4hb7g

Behind this reform, there is the conversion of the Great coalition administration to attract skilled workers into the labor market with enormous needs.Image: Wolfgang M. Weber/Imago

advertisement

Wine red passports with federal eagle are very popular. That should be the case, the German people are virtually unlimited, can live and work anywhere in the EU, participate in political decisions, and choose their occupations freely.

The procedure for that was simplified. In Germany, a new national law has been enforced since Wednesday (June 27, 2024). Many of the 12 million foreigners living in Germany can now apply for a German passport.

1. Voie rapide vers la naturalisation

Foreigners who have lived in Germany for five years can apply for German citizenship. If you have a special integration achievement, it is possible to naturalize in three years. If you can prove that you have high advanced language skills, volunteer activities, schools and workplaces, you can get a German passport faster. Until now, it was up to eight years that foreigners could apply for citizenship.

The federal government, which consists of the Social Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Liberal Party, wants to increase the number of naturalization and create an incentive to blend into Germany faster. Opponents of the fa r-right political parties "AFD for Germany (AFD)" and the opposition of conservative party CDU/CSU are afraid that German passports will be "cheap products."

More than 13 million Africans living in Germany.Image: LUTZ P. KAYSER/PICTURE ALLIANCE

2. Revenu requis

There is no change in the current nationality acquisition conditions. Therefore, those who wish to naturalize must continue to support them. The rules here are more strict, making it more difficult for lo w-income earners. < SPAN> A new law on nationality has been enforced. Foreigners have gained German nationality earlier and have been able to retain their country's passport.

3. Pas de passeport pour les racistes et les antisémites

https://p. dw. com/p/4hb7g

4. Responsabilité de l'Allemagne issue de l'histoire

Behind this reform, there is the conversion of the Great coalition administration to attract skilled workers into the labor market with enormous needs.

Image: Wolfgang M. Weber/Imago

5. Passeport allemand révocable

advertisement

Wine red passports with federal eagle are very popular. That should be the case, the German people are virtually unlimited, can live and work anywhere in the EU, participate in political decisions, and choose their occupations freely.

6. La double nationalité pour tous

The procedure for that was simplified. In Germany, a new national law has been enforced since Wednesday (June 27, 2024). Many of the 12 million foreigners living in Germany can now apply for a German passport.

Foreigners who have lived in Germany for five years can apply for German citizenship. If you have a special integration achievement, it is possible to naturalize in three years. If you can prove that you have high advanced language skills, volunteer activities, schools and workplaces, you can get a German passport faster. Until now, it was up to eight years that foreigners could apply for citizenship.

The federal government, which consists of the Social Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Liberal Party, wants to increase the number of naturalization and create an incentive to blend into Germany faster. Opponents of the fa r-right political parties "AFD for Germany (AFD)" and the opposition of conservative party CDU/CSU are afraid that German passports will be "cheap products."More than 13 million Africans living in Germany.

7. Soulagement pour les travailleurs immigrés et les travailleurs sous contrat avec la RDA

Image: LUTZ P. KAYSER/PICTURE ALLIANCE

There is no change in the current nationality acquisition conditions. Therefore, those who wish to naturalize must continue to support them. The rules here are more strict, making it more difficult for lo w-income earners. A new law on nationality has been enforced. Foreigners have gained German nationality earlier and have been able to retain their country's passport.

8. Les enfants peuvent devenir allemands plus rapidement

https://p. dw. com/p/4hb7g

Behind this reform, there is the conversion of the Great coalition administration to attract skilled workers into the labor market with enormous needs.

8 e réforme de la Loi contre les entraves à la concurrence (GWB)

Image: Wolfgang M. Weber/Imago

Entrées d’index

Mots-clés :

Plan

Texte intégral

Le GWB : la « Constitution » de l’ordre économique

advertisement

Le droit de la concurrence cherche à maintenir la rivalité des entreprises sur le marché

Wine red passports with federal eagle are very popular. That should be the case, the German people are virtually unlimited, can live and work anywhere in the EU, participate in political decisions, and choose their occupations freely.

The procedure for that was simplified. In Germany, a new national law has been enforced since Wednesday (June 27, 2024). Many of the 12 million foreigners living in Germany can now apply for a German passport.

La protection de la concurrence prend deux voies différentes : GWB et UWG

Foreigners who have lived in Germany for five years can apply for German citizenship. If you have a special integration achievement, it is possible to naturalize in three years. If you can prove that you have high advanced language skills, volunteer activities, schools and workplaces, you can get a German passport faster. Until now, it was up to eight years that foreigners could apply for citizenship.

Le droit anti-cartels est né après 1945

The federal government, which consists of the Social Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Liberal Party, wants to increase the number of naturalization and create an incentive to blend into Germany faster. Opponents of the fa r-right political parties "AFD for Germany (AFD)" and the opposition of conservative party CDU/CSU are afraid that German passports will be "cheap products."

More than 13 million Africans living in Germany.

1958 : adoption du GWB

Image: LUTZ P. KAYSER/PICTURE ALLIANCE

Les trois piliers du GWB : interdiction des ententes, …

There is no change in the current nationality acquisition conditions. Therefore, those who wish to naturalize must continue to support them. The rules here are more strict, making it more difficult for lo w-income earners.

… et de l’abus de position dominante ; …

Compliance with the free and democratic basic order of the Constitution was the obligations of everyone who had already applied for a German passport. The act of ant i-Semitism, racist, and other people is particularly excluded. Similarly, those who deny gender or polygamy cannot get a German passport.

… contrôle a priori et conditionnel des concentrations

In the future, recognizing Germany's special historical responsibilities will complement this. In the era of national socialism, Germany attacked Poland and caused World War II. Germany has killed about 6 million European Jews as part of the stat e-o f-th e-art massacre.

That is why the newly naturalized Germans must also support Jewish protection and prohibition of invasion war. Those who cannot share this position should not be Germans.

Those who have lied at the time of naturalization will be deprived of German nationality within 10 years. So far it was so.

In the future, those who do not take Germany's historical responsibilities seriously, such as those who play ant i-Semitic hate messages, will also lose German passports.

In the future, those who acquire German nationality do not need to abandon their current nationality. As a result, multiple nationality is possible for all immigrants. Until now, this option was only from the EU member.

In this way, the federal government wants to respond to people who are closely connected with the country of origin. They argue that elements such as language skills, education, and commitment to democracy are more important in integration than the second passport.

L’articulation entre droit de l’UE et droits nationaux

Possibility of more diverse passports

Image: Frank Oppitz/FUNKE/IMAGO

Force d’attraction du droit de l’UE

The rules that are not so strict are applied to the "guest worker" generation who came to West Germany between 1955 and 1972 and "contract workers" from the former Democratic Republic of Germany (GDR). Its purpose is to pay tribute to their essential contribution to Germany's development. < SPAN> To comply with the free and democratic basic order of the Constitution was already the duty of all people to apply for a German passport. The act of ant i-Semitism, racist, and other people is particularly excluded. Similarly, those who deny gender or polygamy cannot get a German passport.

Déjà, la 7 e réforme du GWB européanisait le droit allemand

In the future, recognizing Germany's special historical responsibilities will complement this. In the era of national socialism, Germany attacked Poland and caused World War II. Germany has killed about 6 million European Jews as part of the stat e-o f-th e-art massacre.

That is why the newly naturalized Germans must also support Jewish protection and prohibition of invasion war. Those who cannot share this position should not be Germans.

Those who have lied at the time of naturalization will be deprived of German nationality within 10 years. So far it was so.

Les principales modifications apportées par la 8 e réforme du GWB

In the future, those who do not take Germany's historical responsibilities seriously, such as those who play ant i-Semitic hate messages, will also lose German passports.

Concernant le contrôle des concentrations

Introduction du test SIEC en droit allemand

In the future, those who acquire German nationality do not need to abandon their current nationality. As a result, multiple nationality is possible for all immigrants. Until now, this option was only from the EU member.

La défense d’efficacité est maintenue, …

In this way, the federal government wants to respond to people who are closely connected with the country of origin. They argue that elements such as language skills, education, and commitment to democracy are more important in integration than the second passport.

… ainsi que l’autorisation par le ministre fédéral de l’Economie

Possibility of more diverse passports

Concernant l’abus de position dominante

Présomption de position dominante : seuil relevé à 40 % de part de marché

Image: Frank Oppitz/FUNKE/IMAGO

Des clarifications plus que de nouvelles règles de fond

The rules that are not so strict are applied to the "guest worker" generation who came to West Germany between 1955 and 1972 and "contract workers" from the former Democratic Republic of Germany (GDR). Its purpose is to pay tribute to their essential contribution to Germany's development. Compliance with the free and democratic basic order of the Constitution was the obligations of everyone who had already applied for a German passport. The act of ant i-Semitism, racist, and other people is particularly excluded. Similarly, those who deny gender or polygamy cannot get a German passport.

In the future, recognizing Germany's special historical responsibilities will complement this. In the era of national socialism, Germany attacked Poland and caused World War II. Germany has killed about 6 million European Jews as part of the stat e-o f-th e-art massacre.

Concernant les actions privées

That is why the newly naturalized Germans must also support Jewish protection and prohibition of invasion war. Those who cannot share this position should not be Germans.

Les associations et la qualité d’agir

Those who have lied at the time of naturalization will be deprived of German nationality within 10 years. So far it was so.

Le conflit d’intérêts entre sphère privée et sphère publique

In the future, those who do not take Germany's historical responsibilities seriously, such as those who play ant i-Semitic hate messages, will also lose German passports.

In the future, those who acquire German nationality do not need to abandon their current nationality. As a result, multiple nationality is possible for all immigrants. Until now, this option was only from the EU member.

Concernant certains domaines plus spécifiques

Application analogue aux caisses de l’assurance maladie légale ?

In this way, the federal government wants to respond to people who are closely connected with the country of origin. They argue that elements such as language skills, education, and commitment to democracy are more important in integration than the second passport.

Possibility of more diverse passports

Presse : nouveau seuil du contrôle des concentrations…

Image: Frank Oppitz/FUNKE/IMAGO

… et exception pour le Presse-Grosso

The rules that are not so strict are applied to the "guest worker" generation who came to West Germany between 1955 and 1972 and "contract workers" from the former Democratic Republic of Germany (GDR). Its purpose is to pay tribute to their essential contribution to Germany's development.

Proof of language proficiency is sufficient if one can communicate in simple German in everyday life. There is also no need to take a naturalization test.

D’autres domaines touchés par la réforme

Children with foreign parents can obtain German citizenship if one of them has been legally resident in Germany for at least five years. Previously, this was only possible after eight years. Research shows that the earlier a child with foreign roots obtains German citizenship, the more successful they are at school and at work.

However, the new provisions are not retroactive, meaning that only children born after 27 June 2024 will benefit.

Bibliographie

On 5 June, the arbitration committee (Vermittlungsausschuss), consisting of representatives of the Bundestag and Bundesrat, reached an agreement on the text of the eighth amendment to the Act on the Prevention of Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, GWB). The compromise was adopted by the Bundestag on June 6, approved by the Bundesrat on June 7, and will come into force the day after its publication in the German Official Journal (Bundesgesetzblatt) scheduled for early July. The new text is essentially along the same lines as the seventh reform of 2005, aiming to harmonize certain German rules with those of European Union law. The aim is to achieve a more homogeneous assessment of the practices covered by the two legal systems, especially with regard to merger control. Although there was a broad consensus from the start, some issues delayed the entry into force of the reform, announced for January 2013. In particular, the analogical application of competition law to statutory health insurance funds was hotly debated. If a compromise was finally reached before the summer, it was probably in order to put into force the changes in the field of reporting that were planned for the eighth reform, changes that the entire political class agreed to, recognizing their urgency.

One relevant economic enthusiast, which is inadequate to the market economic system based on the voluntary social power of the economic subject (Friedrich August von Heku), aims to protect market competition. As the summary of Wolf Begge, the Secretary of the Federal Cartel, from 1999 to 2007, its purpose is to "protect the competition as a system" and inherently it is essentially an economic subject. It is to guarantee and give / / or give the freedom of the largest individual behavior as much as possible. The German competition is "based on the premise that competition can help consumers to create the most advantageous conditions." Free competition is the cornerstone of the German liberal democratic order, and this order is three basic values, that is, freedom (thinking and acting), free spontaneity (for example, doing business ) Based on individual responsibility.

2 In such systems, competition between companies is positioned for the benefit of general goods. Under competition pressure, market players are forced to seduce potential buyers with their offer. Consumers identify a variety of (broad) offers, abandon specific products and services, and buy what they think is most suitable for them. There are various reasons for this choice, such as advantageous purchase prices, new technologies and functions to be searched, better advice from sales clerks, and even more fulfilling guarantees. Therefore, companies must always adapt their activities to consumer demands. Free competition is constantly promoting technical progress and more generally technological innovation, maintaining a certain agreement between demand and supply, and eventually prosperity. < SPAN> 1 The competitive law, which is inseparable from the market economic system based on the spontaneous social power of the economic subject (Friedrich August von Heku), aims to protect the market competition. 。 As the summary of Wolf Begge, the Secretary of the Federal Cartel, from 1999 to 2007, its purpose is to "protect the competition as a system" and inherently it is essentially an economic subject. It is to guarantee and give / / or give the freedom of the largest individual behavior as much as possible. The German competition is "based on the premise that competition can help consumers to create the most advantageous conditions." Free competition is the cornerstone of the German liberal democratic order, and this order is three basic values, that is, freedom (thinking and acting), free spontaneity (for example, doing business ) Based on individual responsibility.

2 In such systems, competition between companies is positioned for the benefit of general goods. Under competition pressure, market players are forced to seduce potential buyers with their offer. Consumers identify a variety of (broad) offers, abandon specific products and services, and buy what they think is most suitable for them. There are various reasons for this choice, such as advantageous purchase prices, new technologies and functions to be searched, better advice from sales clerks, and even more fulfilling guarantees. Therefore, companies must always adapt their activities to consumer demands. Free competition is constantly promoting technical progress and more generally technological innovation, maintaining a certain agreement between demand and supply, and eventually prosperity. One relevant economic enthusiast, which is inadequate to the market economic system based on the voluntary social power of the economic subject (Friedrich August von Heku), aims to protect market competition. As the summary of Wolf Begge, the Secretary of the Federal Cartel, from 1999 to 2007, its purpose is to "protect the competition as a system" and inherently it is essentially an economic subject. It is to guarantee and give / / or give the freedom of the largest individual behavior as much as possible. The German competition is "based on the premise that competition can help consumers to create the most advantageous conditions." Free competition is the cornerstone of the German liberal democratic order, and this order is three basic values, that is, freedom (thinking and acting), free spontaneity (for example, doing business ) Based on individual responsibility.

2 In such systems, competition between companies is positioned for the benefit of general goods. Under competition pressure, market players are forced to seduce potential buyers with their offer. Consumers identify a variety of (broad) offers, abandon specific products and services, and buy what they think is most suitable for them. There are various reasons for this choice, such as advantageous purchase prices, new technologies and functions to be searched, better advice from sales clerks, and even more fulfilling guarantees. Therefore, companies must always adapt their activities to consumer demands. Free competition is constantly promoting technical progress and more generally technological innovation, maintaining a certain agreement between demand and supply, and eventually prosperity.

3 This approach is, of course, only valid if the companies are in real competition with each other. As the various companies have to manage their activities autonomously, they will compete for the support of consumers. However, market actors may have a strong desire to reduce the competitive pressures that exist between companies. Free competition requires rules (organizational liberalism). In order to preserve the economic independence of the companies to the maximum extent possible, competition law only intervenes by limiting their initiative if their actions have the effect of eliminating the beneficial effects of free competition.

4 The aim is therefore to protect competition, but this is achieved in two different ways. Competition law in the broad sense consists of the Act against Restrictions of Competition (GWB) and the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). The UWG, adopted in 1909 and substantially modernized in 2004, lays down the basic rules for the proper functioning of free competition: the rules of fair play based on the principle of good faith (Lauterkeit) (§1), which all players must respect, apply to any commercial activity and form the basis of business ethics. The GWB aims to ensure free competition in the market by limiting possible abuses and obstacles. This is the task entrusted to the German competition authority, whose name comes from its antonym, the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt, Bonn). Specifically, libel in comparative advertising of laundry detergents falls under the provisions of the UWG, while a cartel in which various airlines agree on the price of flights between Paris and Berlin falls under the provisions of the GWB.

Five companies collaborating with each other and restricting competition have not always been punished in Germany. In the epoc h-making ruling (RGZ 38, 155 "Sächsisches Holzstoffkartell"), the REICHSGERICHT (REICHSGERICHT) declared that the quartel between multiple white pulp manufacturers in Zaxen would comply with the laws that were under enforcement. did. In particular, the freedom of trade and industries (GewerbefreiHeit), in the judge's views at the time, this freedom only protects companies from specific actions emitted from public institutions, and protects companies from companies. Because it was not. Under the asylum of the case, a large number of cartels appeared in the German Empire, and it was allowed to be virtually unlimited under the name of private autonomy.

6. The German cartel regulation (Kartellverdnung), enacted on November 2, 1923, was trying to fight the adverse effects of the cartel without actually prohibiting the cartel. During the National Socialist era, Zvangs Cartelgezets was enacted and used as a means for the state to guide the economy through the formation of the national cartel. After World War II, the Allies have enacted the DekartellisierungsGesette (DekartellisierungsGesetze) that prohibits agreements that restrict competition.

7 Inspired by the American ant i-trade method and the theory of order liberalism (especially the Freiburg National Economics School), which must provide a legal framework to the economy to guarantee a free and distorted competition level. The GWB came into effect on January 1, 1958. It is regulations on the ban on ant i-competitive agreements, the regulations on the abuse of dominant status. ENSCHLUSSSKONTRLE) is three and is also called the pillars of competition. < SPAN> 5 It has not always been punished in Germany for companies to collaborate with each other. In the epoc h-making ruling (RGZ 38, 155 "Sächsisches Holzstoffkartell"), the REICHSGERICHT (REICHSGERICHT) declared that the quartel between multiple white pulp manufacturers in Zaxen would comply with the laws that were under enforcement. did. In particular, the freedom of trade and industries (GewerbefreiHeit), in the judge's views at the time, this freedom only protects companies from specific actions emitted from public institutions, and protects companies from companies. Because it was not. Under the asylum of the case, a large number of cartels appeared in the German Empire, and it was allowed to be virtually unlimited under the name of private autonomy.

6. The German cartel regulation (Kartellverdnung), enacted on November 2, 1923, was trying to fight the adverse effects of the cartel without actually prohibiting the cartel. During the National Socialist era, Zvangs Cartelgezets was enacted and used as a means for the state to guide the economy through the formation of the national cartel. After World War II, the Allies have enacted the DekartellisierungsGesette (DekartellisierungsGesetze) that prohibits agreements that restrict competition.

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

7 Inspired by the American ant i-trade method and the theory of order liberalism (especially the Freiburg National Economics School), which must provide a legal framework to the economy to guarantee a free and distorted competition level. The GWB came into effect on January 1, 1958. It is regulations on the ban on ant i-competitive agreements, the regulations on the abuse of dominant status. ENSCHLUSSSKONTRLE) is three and is also called the pillars of competition. Five companies collaborating with each other and restricting competition have not always been punished in Germany. In the epoc h-making ruling (RGZ 38, 155 "Sächsisches Holzstoffkartell"), the REICHSGERICHT (REICHSGERICHT) declared that the quartel between multiple white pulp manufacturers in Zaxen would comply with the laws that were under enforcement. did. In particular, the freedom of trade and industries (GewerbefreiHeit), in the judge's views at the time, this freedom only protects companies from specific actions emitted from public institutions, and protects companies from companies. Because it was not. Under the asylum of the case, a large number of cartels appeared in the German Empire, and it was allowed to be virtually unlimited under the name of private autonomy.

Référence électronique

6. The German cartel regulation (Kartellverdnung), enacted on November 2, 1923, was trying to fight the adverse effects of the cartel without actually prohibiting the cartel. During the National Socialist era, Zvangs Cartelgezets was enacted and used as a means for the state to guide the economy through the formation of the national cartel. After World War II, the Allies have enacted the DekartellisierungsGesetze (DekartellisierungsGesette), which prohibits agreements that restrict competition.

Auteur

Géraldine Demme

7 Inspired by the American ant i-trade method and the theory of order liberalism (especially the Freiburg National Economics School), which must provide a legal framework to the economy to guarantee a free and distorted competition level. The GWB came into effect on January 1, 1958. It is regulations on the ban on ant i-competitive agreements, the regulations on the abuse of dominant status. ENSCHLUSSSKONTRLE) is three and is also called the pillars of competition.

Articles du même auteur

8 For example, Article 1 GWB prohibits agreements between undertakings that harm competition. This category includes, for example, agreements where a reseller undertakes a supplier to obtain from the latter only certain products for the purpose of resale (non-competition clauses). However, some contracts that fall under this general prohibition are ultimately a source of efficiency. Let us look again at the example of a non-compete clause. In order to take into account all the effects of these agreements, including not only anti-competitive but also pro-competitive agreements, an exception is provided in Article 2 GWB: an agreement benefits from the exception if it creates economic efficiencies, a fair part of which is passed on to consumers (customers), is essential for the realization of these efficiencies and does not eliminate competition with respect to a significant part of the product in question. 9 Articles 19 GWB and others deal with the abuse of a dominant position. A dominant position is not prohibited in itself. Indeed, the accumulation of a large market share is often a sign of the efficient activity of a company. It is the abuse of this position that is punishable by law. This is the case, for example, when a dominant company imposes unfair prices or conditions that it would not be able to demand if it were not dominant. 8 For example, Article 1 GWB prohibits agreements between undertakings that harm competition. This category includes, for example, agreements where a reseller undertakes a supplier to obtain from the supplier only certain products for the purpose of resale (non-competition clauses). However, some contracts that fall under this general prohibition are ultimately a source of efficiency. Let us look again at the example of a non-compete clause. In order to take into account all the effects of these agreements, including not only anti-competitive but also pro-competitive agreements, an exception is provided in Article 2 GWB: An agreement benefits from the exception if it creates economic efficiencies, a fair part of which is passed on to consumers (customers), is essential to the realization of these efficiencies and does not eliminate competition with respect to a significant part of the products in question. 9 Articles 19 GWB and others deal with the abuse of dominant positions. A dominant position in itself is not prohibited. Indeed, the accumulation of a large market share is often evidence of an efficient operation of a company. It is the abuse of this position that is punishable by law. This is the case, for example, when a company with a dominant market position imposes unfair prices or conditions that it would not be able to demand otherwise. 8 For example, Article 1 GWB prohibits agreements between undertakings that harm competition. This category includes, for example, agreements where a reseller undertakes a supplier to obtain only certain products from the supplier for resale (non-competition clauses). However, some contracts that fall under this general prohibition can ultimately be a source of efficiency. Let us look again at the example of a non-compete clause: In order to take into account all the effects of these agreements, not only anti-competitive but also pro-competitive agreements, an exception is provided in Article 2 GWB: An agreement benefits from an exception if it creates economic efficiencies, a fair part of which is passed on to consumers (customers), is essential for the realization of these efficiencies and does not eliminate competition for a significant part of the product in question. 9 Articles 19 GWB and elsewhere deal with the abuse of a dominant position. A dominant position is not prohibited in itself. Indeed, the accumulation of a large market share is often evidence of the efficient operation of a company. It is the abuse of this position that is punishable by law. This is the case, for example, when a company with a dominant market position imposes unfair prices or conditions that it would not be able to demand if it were not in a dominant position.

Droits d’auteur

(10) The merger management is stipulated as part of the GWB Article 35 or later. In principle, the merger is legal, and it is even desirable when it has economic efficiency, such as a decrease in production costs, a scale of the scale, and the development of new products. However, the merger between market participants can also have ant i-competitive effects. If two companies that have been acting independently in the market are merged, competition pressure will not be applied. To prevent the deterioration of competition due to such a merger, the German legislative government has introduced preliminary regulations for merger. Of course, not all transactions are subject to this regulation. This regulation is applied only to the merger between companies that exceed the threshold specified in Article 35 of GWB.

La nouvelle loi allemande sur les obligations de vigilance des entreprises dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement

According to Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the ARC, German merger regulations are applied in the following cases.

1-The total sales of all involved companies exceeded 500 million euros, and

• 2-If domestic sales of one company exceed 25 million euros, and domestic sales of the other company exceeds € 5 million.
• The investigated sales are from the year before the merger. Article 35 (2) of the ARC also specifies a certain exception.

If the transaction is managed, the Federal Cartel Bureau (Bundeskartellamt, Bonon) will judge it and will be concerned that concentration will create or strengthen its dominant status. The transaction is prohibited in accordance with Article 36, Paragraph 1.

11 Today, GWB is influenced by the European Union Law. Competition law is particularly important at the European level because it is one of the pillars of building the market. European authorities, which have eliminated institutional barriers to trade, impose themselves to ensure that private businesses cannot subdivide the market. < Span> 10 Merative management is specified as part of Article 35 and later of GWB. In principle, the merger is legal, and it is even desirable when it has economic efficiency, such as a decrease in production costs, a scale of the scale, and the development of new products. However, the merger between market participants can also have ant i-competitive effects. If two companies that have been acting independently in the market are merged, competition pressure will not be applied. To prevent the deterioration of competition due to such a merger, the German legislative government has introduced preliminary regulations for merger. Of course, not all transactions are subject to this regulation. This regulation is applied only to the merger between companies that exceed the threshold specified in Article 35 of GWB.

Champs d’application

According to Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the ARC, German merger regulations are applied in the following cases.

Contours des devoirs de vigilance

1-The total sales of all involved companies exceeded 500 million euros, and

2-If domestic sales of one company exceed 25 million euros, and domestic sales of the other company exceeds € 5 million.

• The investigated sales are from the year before the merger. Article 35 (2) of the ARC also specifies a certain exception.
• If the transaction is managed, the Federal Cartel Bureau (Bundeskartellamt, Bonon) will judge it and will be concerned that concentration will create or strengthen its dominant status. The transaction is prohibited in accordance with Article 36, Paragraph 1.
• 11 Today, GWB is influenced by the European Union Law. Competition law is particularly important at the European level because it is one of the pillars of building the market. European authorities, which have eliminated institutional barriers to trade, impose themselves to ensure that private businesses cannot subdivide the market. (10) The merger management is stipulated as part of the GWB Article 35 or later. In principle, the merger is legal, and it is even desirable when it has economic efficiency, such as a decrease in production costs, a scale of the scale, and the development of new products. However, the merger between market participants can also have ant i-competitive effects. If two companies that have been acting independently in the market are merged, competition pressure will not be applied. To prevent the deterioration of competition due to such a merger, the German legislative government has introduced preliminary regulations for merger. Of course, not all transactions are subject to this regulation. This regulation is applied only to the merger between companies that exceed the threshold specified in Article 35 of GWB.
• According to Article 35, Paragraph 1 of the ARC, German merger regulations are applied in the following cases.
• 1-The total sales of all involved companies exceeded 500 million euros, and
• 2-If domestic sales of one company exceed 25 million euros, and domestic sales of the other company exceeds € 5 million.
• The investigated sales are from the year before the merger. Article 35 (2) of the ARC also specifies a certain exception.
• If the transaction is managed, the Federal Cartel Bureau (Bundeskartellamt, Bonon) will judge it and will be concerned that concentration will create or strengthen its dominant status. The transaction is prohibited in accordance with Article 36, Paragraph 1.
• 11 Today, GWB is influenced by the European Union Law. Competition law is particularly important at the European level because it is one of the pillars of building the market. European authorities, which have eliminated institutional barriers to trade, impose themselves to ensure that private businesses cannot subdivide the market.

12 Given the coexistence of Union and national law, it is essential to know which mechanism to use when both are intended to apply in the same case. The answer depends on the practice in question. Mergers with a European dimension are exclusively subject to Union law (Article 21(3) of Regulation 139/2004 of 20 January 2004, OJ L 24 of 29 January 2004). European law must also apply to cartels and abuses of dominant positions that may affect trade between the Member States. However, Article 3(1) of Regulation 1/2003 allows for the parallel application of national law. However, Article 3(2) considerably limits the principle of parallel application of national law, in that it introduces mandatory convergence for cartels. In other words, the parallel application of national law cannot lead to results other than those obtained by Union law. The reason is that negotiations at European level are often difficult. It was not possible to reach a consensus on the principle of exclusion from national competition law. The Franco-German couple in particular strongly criticized this principle, which was seen as an attack on national sovereignty. Nevertheless, the solution finally adopted resulted in a result that was largely in line with the principles of national competition law.

Sanctions des violations des devoirs de vigilance

13 This relationship between European and national rules also strongly encourages national legislators to align their national solutions with those of EU law, thus bringing the two closer together. The French and German systems are currently very similar. While in other fields this can be explained by the existence of directives that are instruments for harmonizing European national law, which require their transposition into various national laws, this is not the case with antitrust law.

14 The reason for the similarity is therefore the attractiveness of EU law as a model, rather than its binding power. The best example of this is the seventh GWB reform in 2005 (see REA 92/2009). Until then, German antitrust law differed from EU law by making a clear distinction between horizontal agreements (agreements between competitors) and vertical agreements (agreements between undertakings at different levels of the market, e. g. between manufacturers and distributors). Agreements between competitors in principle have a negative effect on the competitive situation in the market, while vertical agreements allow undertakings to optimize their distribution networks. Previous German law reflected this difference: the GWB only prohibited horizontal agreements. Vertical agreements, except those relating to prices, were subject to simple abuse restrictions and the possibility of intervention by the competition authorities was limited. 15 However, since the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003 on 1 May 2004, national authorities and courts are obliged to apply EU antitrust law in all cases where trade between Member States is affected, and can only apply convergent national law at the same time. Germany therefore decided to align with the EU regime, i. e. to subject horizontal and vertical agreements to the prohibition principle. Due to practical considerations, the abuse rule was abolished in the seventh reform. Firstly, maintaining divergent national rules for a small number of purely internal cases is against the optimal allocation of judicial resources. Secondly, full harmonization of national and European law would limit the consequences of interpretation difficulties surrounding the concept of impact on trade between Member States and would provide greater legal certainty for companies. Finally, it would be difficult to apply two entirely different standards to similar facts within the same legal system, depending on whether EU law applies or not.

16 The background to the current reform is a similar argument: the German legislature is trying to move closer to EU law while still maintaining certain features. The aim is to achieve a more uniform assessment of practices that are the subject of the two legal orders. However, unlike the 7th GWB reform, the current reform does not bring about any major changes in this area.

• 17 The law on anti-competitive agreements was already significantly reformed in the 2005 reform, so the current reform is practically irrelevant in this area. The current reform affects in particular merger control and makes some changes to the abuse of dominant positions. In addition, it expands the scope of those who can bring private lawsuits and lays down rules for certain areas, such as statutory health insurance funds and the press.
• 18 One of the key points of the reform concerns merger control (Zusammenschlusskontrolle). As mentioned above, the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) prohibits controlling mergers according to the still valid § 36(1) GWB if there is concern that the merger will create or strengthen a dominant position. In order to achieve a more uniform assessment of mergers in the German and European legal order, the 8th reform of the ARC introduced into § 36(1) the criterion of "significant impediment to effective competition" laid down in Article 2 par. 3 of European Regulation No. 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 (OJ L 24 of 29 January 2004) for the control of mergers of European dimension. This test is known as the SIEC test (Significant Impediment to Effective Competition). This test makes it possible not only to assess the structural effects of the merger, but also to take into account effects that may affect effective competition, for example whether the merged companies are in a position to restrain the expansion of competitors by controlling resources necessary for production. In this way, the Federal Cartel Office can assess factors that are likely to contribute to the anticompetitive effects of a merger apart from the merger itself.
• 19 GWB explicitly states the right to prove that the merger has improved competition, and that the positive effect is exceeded the negative effect. This is a s o-called abwägungsklausel mechanism in German, that is, a weighted clause, for example, an increase in market dominance by merger is offset by improving the efficiency of reducing production costs to reducing the resale price. It will be possible to evaluate. This defend is specified in GWB §36 (1) and is also maintained in this reform. Rules 139/2004's provisions do not explicitly contain such a defone, but not in the European Union Law. It is described in the explanation 29 of the same rule, and the European Commission mentions on the guidelines on the evaluation of the horizontal merger (February 5, 2004, 2004/C 31/03, paragraph 77).

20 рое тохан возожососогогогогононаз папапапапое ралым вом кар, е п д дон комам пам дам эоном вом вом эом оом и эо равававано побадающ и иам. Согасо иорац, оованой сом, сома в в в в gwb былодано 21 такое. выдано ваз ш, п котых бы оововы сов. и Ruhrgas, раз на которорое быдано в 2002 году, посол, по м ма, оовововадеос газосаб.

21 The German reform also introduced certain changes in the area of ​​abuse of dominant position. In the version that is still in force, a company is presumed to have a dominant position if it holds at least one-third of the market share. This is a simple presumption and the parties can prove the contrary. In recent years, it has become clear that a company with one-third of the market holds a dominant position only in exceptional cases. The reform therefore raises the threshold at which a company is presumed to be in a dominant position from one-third to 40%.

22 Other changes are mainly aimed at improving the systematicity of the provisions on abuse of dominant position. A logical subject order from Article 19 ARC onwards was not properly followed. Article 18 ARC now deals with the definition and presumption of a dominant position. According to Article 18 Paragraph 1 ARC, an undertaking is in a dominant position if it has no competitors, is not exposed to significant competition or occupies a dominant position in relation to competitors in the relevant market, currently presumed if the undertaking has a market share of at least 40% (Article 18 Paragraph 4 ARC). Article 19 GWB regulates the conduct of undertakings in a dominant position, i. e. prohibits the abuse of a dominant position by one or more undertakings, while Article 20 GWB only concerns the conduct of undertakings with relative market power, i. e. undertakings that are not in a dominant position but on which SMEs are economically dependent in that they have no other sufficient or acceptable alternatives for the purchase or sale of certain goods or services.

• 23 Another clarification concerns the measures that the Federal Cartel Office may impose on undertakings to put an end to violations of the GWB Regulation or Articles 101 or 102 TEU (anti-competitive agreements/abuse of dominant position). Since the seventh reform, Article 32 (2) GWB provides for the possibility for the competition authorities to impose certain measures against undertakings. The reform provides that these measures may be either behavioral or structural. For example, forcing an undertaking abusing a dominant position to cease the conduct in question is a behavioral measure, whereas requiring it to dispose of assets it owns is a structural measure. Structural measures may only be imposed if there are no equally effective behavioral measures or if the latter prove to be more restrictive for the undertaking in question than structural measures. In doing so, the German Reform Act practically adopts Article 7 of European Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 word for word. 24 The reform also brings about changes in the area of ​​private enforcement in competition law. Whereas the explicit aim of the UWG is to maintain fairness in the competitive process as well as to protect the private interests involved (businesses and consumers), the GWB seeks to maintain competition as an institution in the market. Despite this fact, it is becoming increasingly common for businesses and consumers to seek compensation for damage suffered not by unfair conduct, but by anti-competitive conduct (e. g. price increases as a result of anti-competitive cartels). 23 Another clarification concerns the measures that the Federal Cartel Office may impose on undertakers to put an end to violations of the GWB rules or Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (anti-competitive agreements/abuse of dominant positions). Since the seventh reform, Article 32 Paragraph 2 GWB provides for the possibility for the competition authorities to impose certain measures against undertakers. The reform provides that these measures may be either behavioral or structural. For example, forcing an undertaking that abuses a dominant position to cease the conduct in question is a behavioral measure, whereas requiring it to dispose of assets owned is a structural measure. Structural measures can only be imposed if there are no equally effective behavioral measures or if the latter prove to be more restrictive for the undertaking in question than the structural measures. In doing so, the German Reform Act virtually adopts Article 7 of European Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 verbatim.
• 24 The reform also brings about changes in the field of private enforcement in competition law. Whereas the explicit aim of the UWG is to protect the private interests involved (businesses and consumers) as well as to maintain fairness in the competitive process, the GWB seeks to preserve competition as an institution in the market. Despite this fact, it is becoming increasingly common for undertakings and consumers to seek compensation for damage suffered not by unfair conduct but by anti-competitive conduct (e. g. price increases as a result of anti-competitive cartels). 23 Another clarification concerns the measures that the Federal Cartel Office may impose on undertakings to put an end to violations of the GWB Regulation or Articles 101 or 102 TEU (anti-competitive agreements/abuse of dominant position). Since the seventh reform, Article 32 (2) GWB provides for the possibility for the competition authorities to impose certain measures against undertakings. The reform provides that these measures may be either behavioral or structural. For example, forcing an undertaking abusing a dominant position to cease the conduct in question is a behavioral measure, whereas requiring it to dispose of assets it owns is a structural measure. Structural measures may only be imposed if there are no equally effective behavioral measures or if the latter prove to be more restrictive for the undertaking in question than structural measures. In doing so, the German Reform Act practically adopts Article 7 of European Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 word for word. 24 The reform also brings about changes in the area of ​​private enforcement in competition law. Whereas the explicit objective of the UWG is to protect the private interests involved (businesses and consumers) as well as to maintain fairness in the competitive process, the GWB seeks to preserve competition as an institution in the market. Despite this fact, it is becoming increasingly common for businesses and consumers to seek compensation not for unfair conduct, but for damage suffered by anti-competitive conduct (e. g. higher prices as a result of anti-competitive cartels).

25. Article 33 of the ARC Article 33 shows compensation for damages caused by the elimination or suspension of infringement of Article 101 or Article 102 (Article 33, paragraph (1)) and the actions of the ARC or European Union's functions (Article 33, Article 33, 33. We are considering these private interests by providing a specific legal basis for a litigation by a private person seeking a section). Prior to the revision, Article 33, Paragraph 2 GWB acknowledged that only competitors of infringed companies would file a lawsuit based on Article 33, Paragraph 1 GWB. After the revision, all organizations of related businesses (that is, not only the competitors, but also the suppliers or purchasers), and the consumer organization have the right to take action to end the violation. Included in the circle of the person. Furthermore, Article 34 of the GWB stipulates that the defendant may ask the competitive authorities to return the interests obtained illegally due to intentional or negligence. According to GWB 34a, the same possibility is open to specific organizations, and the range is as wide as above. However, it should be noted that such a request for return of illegal gain has not yet been requested. < SPAN> 25 ARC Article 33 is compensation for damages caused by or suspension of violation of Article 101 or 102 of the ARC or European Union (Article 33, Paragraph 1) and the actions (33). Article 3) We are considering these private interests by providing a specific legal basis for a litigation by a private person. Prior to the revision, Article 33, Paragraph 2 GWB acknowledged that only competitors of infringed companies would file a lawsuit based on Article 33, Paragraph 1 GWB. After the revision, all organizations of related businesses (that is, not only the competitors, but also the suppliers or purchasers), and the consumer organization have the right to take action to end the violation. Included in the circle of the person. Furthermore, Article 34 of the GWB stipulates that the defendant may ask the competitive authorities to return the interests obtained illegally due to intentional or negligence. According to GWB 34a, the same possibility is open to specific organizations, and the range is as wide as above. However, it should be noted that such a request for return of illegal gain has not yet been requested. 25. Article 33 of the ARC Article 33 shows compensation for damages caused by the elimination or suspension of infringement of Article 101 or Article 102 (Article 33, paragraph (1)) and the actions of the ARC or European Union's functions (Article 33, Article 33, 33. We are considering these private interests by providing a specific legal basis for a litigation by a private person seeking a section). Prior to the revision, Article 33, Paragraph 2 GWB acknowledged that only competitors of infringed companies would file a lawsuit based on Article 33, Paragraph 1 GWB. After the revision, all organizations of related businesses (that is, not only the competitors, but also the suppliers or purchasers), and the consumer organization have the right to take action to end the violation. Included in the circle of the person. Furthermore, Article 34 of the GWB stipulates that the defendant may ask the competitive authorities to return the interests obtained illegally due to intentional or negligence. According to GWB 34a, the same possibility is open to specific organizations, and the range is as wide as above. However, it should be noted that such a request for return of illegal gain has not yet been requested.

Anmerkungen

It is not yet known whether the 26 organizations, especially consumer groups, will frequently use the new possibilities released by the 8th GWB revision, but this revision will further promote the appearance of private measures. 。 Such a lawsuit helps to ensure the effectiveness of GWB's regulations, and to compensate the victims of the losses caused by ant i-competitive acts. But the situation is more complicated. At present, more than half of the ant i-competitive acts have been discovered by corporate cooperation in the linear program. The Liniency program is to crack down on the act of hindering competition. Cartels are usually formed in a closed room, so it is very difficult for competition authorities to caught this, and it is even more difficult to submit the necessary evidence. For this reason, it is permitted that companies that participate in ant i-competitive cartels will be exempted from the sanctions if they accuse the act (KronzeUgenRegelung). Participation in a company in the linear program is an indispensable means in fighting cartels (for example, the infamous global vitamin cultel was first caught with the cooperation of a company). However, if the company that has accused himself is afraid of being a litigation against the cartel, he has to cooperate with the linensy program.

27 Let's briefly add this debate at the European level. The European Union Court Court is in the European Union in the COURAGE Judgment (Case C-453/99 [2001] ECR I-6297) and MANFREDI (JOINED CASES C-295/04 To 298/04 [2006] ECR I-6619) The principles of the right to receive compensation for victims of ant i-competitive practitions prohibited by law have been cleared. On the other hand, the various attempts to develop specific systems in this field have failed so far, mainly for the same reasons for the domestic level. < SPAN> 26 organizations, especially consumer groups, are not yet known whether new possibilities released by the 8th GWB revision, but this revision will further promote private measures. It is a thing. Such a lawsuit helps to ensure the effectiveness of GWB's regulations, and to compensate the victims of the losses caused by ant i-competitive acts. But the situation is more complicated. At present, more than half of the ant i-competitive acts have been discovered by corporate cooperation in the linear program. The Liniency program is to crack down on the act of hindering competition. Cartels are usually formed in a closed room, so it is very difficult for competition authorities to caught this, and it is even more difficult to submit the necessary evidence. For this reason, it is permitted that companies that participate in ant i-competitive cartels will be exempted from the sanctions if they accuse the act (KronzeUgenRegelung). Participation in a company in the linear program is an indispensable means in fighting cartels (for example, the infamous global vitamin cultel was first caught with the cooperation of a company). However, if the company that has accused himself is afraid of being a litigation against the cartel, he has to cooperate with the linensy program.

27 Let's briefly add this debate at the European level. The European Union Court Court is in the European Union in the COURAGE Judgment (Case C-453/99 [2001] ECR I-6297) and MANFREDI (JOINED CASES C-295/04 To 298/04 [2006] ECR I-6619) The principles of the right to receive compensation for victims of ant i-competitive practitions prohibited by law have been cleared. On the other hand, the various attempts to develop specific systems in this field have failed so far, mainly for the same reasons for the domestic level. It is not yet known whether the 26 organizations, especially consumer groups, will frequently use the new possibilities released by the 8th GWB revision, but this revision will further promote the appearance of private measures. 。 Such a lawsuit helps to ensure the effectiveness of GWB's regulations, and to compensate the victims of the losses caused by ant i-competitive acts. But the situation is more complicated. At present, more than half of the ant i-competitive acts have been discovered by corporate cooperation in the linear program. The Liniency program is to crack down on the act of hindering competition. Cartels are usually formed in a closed room, so it is very difficult for competition authorities to caught this, and it is even more difficult to submit the necessary evidence. For this reason, it is permitted that companies that participate in ant i-competitive cartels will be exempted from the sanctions if they accuse the act (KronzeUgenRegelung). Participation in a company in the linear program is an indispensable means in fighting cartels (for example, the infamous global vitamin cultel was first caught with the cooperation of a company). However, if the company that has accused himself is afraid of being a litigation against the cartel, he has to cooperate with the linensy program.

27 Let's briefly add this debate at the European level. The European Union Court Court is in the European Union in the COURAGE Judgment (Case C-453/99 [2001] ECR I-6297) and MANFREDI (JOINED CASES C-295/04 To 298/04 [2006] ECR I-6619) The principles of the right to receive compensation for victims of ant i-competitive practitions prohibited by law have been cleared. On the other hand, the various attempts to develop specific systems in this field have failed so far, mainly for the same reasons for the domestic level.

17 The law on anti-competitive agreements was already significantly reformed in the 2005 reform, so the current reform is practically irrelevant in this area. The current reform affects in particular merger control and makes some changes to the abuse of dominant positions. In addition, it expands the scope of those who can bring private lawsuits and lays down rules for certain areas, such as statutory health insurance funds and the press.

18 One of the key points of the reform concerns merger control (Zusammenschlusskontrolle). As mentioned above, the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) prohibits controlling mergers according to the still valid § 36(1) GWB if there is concern that the merger will create or strengthen a dominant position. In order to achieve a more uniform assessment of mergers in the German and European legal order, the 8th reform of the ARC introduced into § 36(1) the criterion of "significant impediment to effective competition" laid down in Article 2 par. 3 of European Regulation No. 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 (OJ L 24 of 29 January 2004) for the control of mergers of European dimension. This test is known as the SIEC test (Significant Impediment to Effective Competition). This test makes it possible not only to assess the structural effects of the merger, but also to take into account effects that may affect effective competition, for example whether the merged companies are in a position to restrain the expansion of competitors by controlling resources necessary for production. In this way, the Federal Cartel Office can assess factors that are likely to contribute to the anticompetitive effects of a merger apart from the merger itself.

23 Another clarification concerns the measures that the Federal Cartel Office may impose on undertakings to put an end to violations of the GWB Regulation or Articles 101 or 102 TEU (anti-competitive agreements/abuse of dominant position). Since the seventh reform, Article 32 (2) GWB provides for the possibility for the competition authorities to impose certain measures against undertakings. The reform provides that these measures may be either behavioral or structural. For example, forcing an undertaking abusing a dominant position to cease the conduct in question is a behavioral measure, whereas requiring it to dispose of assets it owns is a structural measure. Structural measures may only be imposed if there are no equally effective behavioral measures or if the latter prove to be more restrictive for the undertaking in question than structural measures. In doing so, the German Reform Act practically adopts Article 7 of European Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 word for word. 24 The reform also brings about changes in the area of ​​private enforcement in competition law. Whereas the explicit aim of the UWG is to maintain fairness in the competitive process as well as to protect the private interests involved (businesses and consumers), the GWB seeks to maintain competition as an institution in the market. Despite this fact, it is becoming increasingly common for businesses and consumers to seek compensation for damage suffered not by unfair conduct, but by anti-competitive conduct (e. g. price increases as a result of anti-competitive cartels). 23 Another clarification concerns the measures that the Federal Cartel Office may impose on undertakers to put an end to violations of the GWB rules or Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (anti-competitive agreements/abuse of dominant positions). Since the seventh reform, Article 32 Paragraph 2 GWB provides for the possibility for the competition authorities to impose certain measures against undertakers. The reform provides that these measures may be either behavioral or structural. For example, forcing an undertaking that abuses a dominant position to cease the conduct in question is a behavioral measure, whereas requiring it to dispose of assets owned is a structural measure. Structural measures can only be imposed if there are no equally effective behavioral measures or if the latter prove to be more restrictive for the undertaking in question than the structural measures. In doing so, the German Reform Act virtually adopts Article 7 of European Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 verbatim.

Another amendment to the 31 GWB concerns the press. In Germany, the distribution of daily newspapers and periodicals is largely carried out by wholesalers grouped under the so-called Presse-Grosso. The Presse-Grosso has a duty of neutrality and must treat all publishers and retailers the same. In this way, it guarantees a diversity of publishers and access to a wide range of titles across Germany (flächendeckende Versorgung). However, the future of this system has become uncertain due to a decision of the Cologne District Court on 14 February 2012 (88 O (Kart) 17/11). The judges ruled that the Presse-Grosso's concentrated trading monopoly falls under the cartel ban and cannot benefit from the exemption. In order not to jeopardize this system, the reform provides in Article 30. 2a GWB that the prohibition on agreements in Article 1 GWB (anti-competitive agreements) does not apply to such agreements. However, a safeguard is provided in Article 30. 3. 2 ARC, which allows the Federal Cartel Office to declare such agreements invalid if it proves an abuse of an established exemption.

Zitierempfehlung

Papierversionen:

32 Unlike the changes in the health insurance sector, there was a broad political consensus in favor of reforming the press sector, especially the protection of the Presse Grosso system, which has been established in Germany and seems to be bearing fruit. Indeed, "Germany has 1. 5 outlets per 1, 000 inhabitants, three times more than in France and the densest network in the world" (Robert, 2012).

Online-Version

33 The reform also introduced a provision that explicitly excludes mergers of public authorities and undertakings (öffentliche Einrichtungen und Betriebe) from the scope of merger control if the merger is justified by regional planning (new Article 35 par. 2 sentence 2 (GWB)). The aim of such regional planning ("kommunale Gebietsreformen") is not to increase the market share of the public authorities involved but to make their activities more efficient. The new text also provides for a special regime for the water sector (§§ 31-31b). Finally, a number of important procedural changes have been introduced that are intended to facilitate the prosecution of anti-competitive behaviour.

Autor

Sandie Calme

34 Overall, the changes introduced in the Eighth Reform do not revolutionize the field; they simplify the GWB regime and bring it closer to EU law. Such harmonization is desirable in that it provides greater legal certainty for companies, who do not have to consider two very different legal systems: national and European. As Professor Wernhard Meschel puts it, "where markets function, everyone gets what they want." "Böge U. Effizienz und Wettbewerb a Sicht des Bundeskartellamts", in Peter Oberender (ed.), Effizienz und Wettbewerb, Berlin, 2005

Weitere Artikel des Autors

Federal Government, Federal budget proposal, Budget proposal for the revision of the Federal budget proposal (8. GWB-ÄndG), BT-Drucksache 17/9852 of 31 May 2012

Bundestag, Opinion on the recommendation of the Committee on Economics and Technology of the Federal Parliament, BT-Drucksache 17/11053 of 17/10/2012