Post by nurnobi85 on Feb 12, 2024 1:39:41 GMT -5
Revenue of the business groups involved in the mergers should be adopted. Notwithstanding the opinions mentioned in item II above , favorable to knowledge of the operation and subsequent approval without restrictions, it is urgent to pay attention to a systematic reading of the provisions that concern the applicability of the Competition Defense Law, proceeding to an interpretation that seeks the true will sought by the legislator when drafting the aforementioned legal document. I therefore propose a review of CADE's traditional jurisprudence regarding the billing criteria for notification of mergers.
To this end, it is essential to read art. 2nd, caput, combined with art. 54, § 3 of the aforementioned legal diploma. Says the art. 2nd: “Art. 2 This law applies, without prejudice to conventions and treaties to which Brazil is a signatory, to practices committed in whole or in part in the national territory or Dubai Email List that produce or may produce effects there.” From reading the article on screen, it is clear that it is a requirement for the subsumption of Law 8884/94 to be carried out, for any practices committed, whether carried out in the national territory or outside it, the production or the possibility of producing effects in the National territory . This understanding is exposed, very appropriately, in the vote by former.
Councilor Celso Campilongo, in AC nº 08012.002992/02004-14, in verbis : “The national Antitrust Law opted for the principle of territoriality of effects, or objective territoriality, to define its jurisdiction in the face of operations or behaviors that, even occurring abroad, may produce effects in the national territory. Therefore, […], art. 2 of the Antitrust Law applies, exclusively, to practices that, even committed outside the national territory, produce or may produce economic effects there (original emphasis). Simply put: without effects in Brazil, even if potential, Law 8884/94 is inapplicable to practices occurring abroad.
To this end, it is essential to read art. 2nd, caput, combined with art. 54, § 3 of the aforementioned legal diploma. Says the art. 2nd: “Art. 2 This law applies, without prejudice to conventions and treaties to which Brazil is a signatory, to practices committed in whole or in part in the national territory or Dubai Email List that produce or may produce effects there.” From reading the article on screen, it is clear that it is a requirement for the subsumption of Law 8884/94 to be carried out, for any practices committed, whether carried out in the national territory or outside it, the production or the possibility of producing effects in the National territory . This understanding is exposed, very appropriately, in the vote by former.
Councilor Celso Campilongo, in AC nº 08012.002992/02004-14, in verbis : “The national Antitrust Law opted for the principle of territoriality of effects, or objective territoriality, to define its jurisdiction in the face of operations or behaviors that, even occurring abroad, may produce effects in the national territory. Therefore, […], art. 2 of the Antitrust Law applies, exclusively, to practices that, even committed outside the national territory, produce or may produce economic effects there (original emphasis). Simply put: without effects in Brazil, even if potential, Law 8884/94 is inapplicable to practices occurring abroad.