Post by nurnobi85 on Feb 12, 2024 14:46:47 GMT 8
Certain situations in which, given certain conditions, the behavior of the economic agent may affect the competition. To this end, authorities must establish objective notification criteria directly related to their jurisdiction. Among the suggested criteria are revenue and volume of business acquired. It should be noted that, as expressly mentioned in the aforementioned report, these criteria must be related to the domestic jurisdiction in which notification is required. Because of this, the revenue of companies and/or the volume of business acquired in that jurisdiction must be considered. The worldwide revenue, for example, of the companies involved, does not necessarily need to be discarded, it can be taken as an.
additional notification prerequisite, but not sufficient to subject the operation to analysis. When consulting the notification criteria in other jurisdictions, it can be seen that, in several of them, either the worldwide revenue criterion is removed or it is associated with the revenue of companies in the Dubai Email List country in which the operation was presented. This is the case in Argentina, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Union, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. That said, it remains obvious that, in order for it to be presumed to be possibly harmful to competition, producing economic effects in the national territory, and.
To be, evidently, known by the CADE plenary, it is a necessary requirement for every Concentration Act carried out in foreign territory that a of the participants, or both, together, have (i) a share in the relevant market equal to or greater than 20%; or (ii) annual gross revenue in the national territory recorded in the last fiscal year equal to or greater than R$400,000,000.00. Finally, it remains to clarify a circumstance that I, in several votes, pointed out as an obstacle to the review of CADE's traditional jurisprudence on the matter: legal certainty. To clarify further, I have taken a position on several occasions that the review of traditional jurisprudence in this matter should only be carried out through an.
additional notification prerequisite, but not sufficient to subject the operation to analysis. When consulting the notification criteria in other jurisdictions, it can be seen that, in several of them, either the worldwide revenue criterion is removed or it is associated with the revenue of companies in the Dubai Email List country in which the operation was presented. This is the case in Argentina, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Union, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. That said, it remains obvious that, in order for it to be presumed to be possibly harmful to competition, producing economic effects in the national territory, and.
To be, evidently, known by the CADE plenary, it is a necessary requirement for every Concentration Act carried out in foreign territory that a of the participants, or both, together, have (i) a share in the relevant market equal to or greater than 20%; or (ii) annual gross revenue in the national territory recorded in the last fiscal year equal to or greater than R$400,000,000.00. Finally, it remains to clarify a circumstance that I, in several votes, pointed out as an obstacle to the review of CADE's traditional jurisprudence on the matter: legal certainty. To clarify further, I have taken a position on several occasions that the review of traditional jurisprudence in this matter should only be carried out through an.