Anvisa cria grupo interno para coordenar as ações de combate à dengue em 2024Grupo é...

Notícias

Referral of the proposed subsidy to Tata Steel UK by the Department for Business and Trade

The Subsidy Advice Unit (SAU) has published a report providing the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) with advice concerning its proposed subsidy to Tata Steel UK.From:Competition and Markets AuthorityPublished21 December 2023Last updated6 February 2024 — See all updatesCase type:SAU referralCase state:ClosedMarket sector:EngineeringOpened:21 December 2023

Contents

1. Administrative timetable
2. Final report
3. Request from DBT
4. Information about the subsidy provided by DBT
5. Information for third parties
6. Notes to third parties wishing to make a submission
7. Contacts

Administrative timetable

Final report

6 February 2024: The SAU has published its report providing advice to DBT concerning the proposed subsidy to Tata Steel UK. The report sets out our evaluation of DBT’s Assessment of Compliance of its proposed subsidy with the requirements set out in the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

• Final report (PDF, 268KB) (6.2.24)

Request from DBT

21 December 2023: The SAU has accepted a request for a report from DBT for its proposed subsidy to Tata Steel UK. This request relates to a Subsidy of Particular Interest.

The SAU will prepare a report, which will provide an evaluation of DBT’s assessment of whether the subsidy complies with the subsidy control requirements (Assessment of Compliance). The SAU will complete its report within 30 working days.

Information about the subsidy provided by DBT

The Department for Business and Trade is a public authority. The Department for Business and Trade is proposing to award Tata Steel UK Limited a capital grant of up to £500m, to enable investment into greener steel production at the Port Talbot site, currently the UK’s largest single industrial carbon emitter.

This grant is part of a larger potential capital investment from the company totalling £1.25 billion. The proposal is subject to employee consultation and includes replacing existing Blast Furnaces at Port Talbot with an Electric Arc Furnace.

This investment would reduce the UK’s entire carbon emissions by around 1.5%. The subsidy would be ringfenced for the purposes of decarbonisation, and used solely for the installation of the Electric Arc Furnace and associated works/plant. The subsidy would be paid in arrears against milestones to be agreed, reimbursing Tata Steel UK Limited for approved capital expenditure.

Information for third parties

If you wish to comment on matters relevant to the SAU’s evaluation of the Assessment of Compliance concerning DBT’s proposed subsidy, please send your comments before 5pm on the date stipulated in the timetable above. For guidance on representations relevant to the Assessment of Compliance, see the section on reporting period and transparency in the Operation of the subsidy control functions of the Subsidy Advice Unit.

Please send your submissions to us at: sau-tatasteel@cma.gov.uk copying the public authority: steel.comms@businessandtrade.gov.uk

Please also provide a contact address and explain in what capacity you are making the submission (for example, as an individual or a representative of a business or organisation).

Notes to third parties wishing to make a submission

The SAU will only take your submission into account if it can be shared with DBT. The SAU will send a copy of your submission to DBT together with its report. This is to allow the public authority to take account of the submission in its decision as to whether to grant or modify the subsidy or its assessment. We therefore ask that you provide express consent for your full and unredacted submission to be shared. We also encourage you to share your submission directly with DBT using the email address provided above.

The SAU may use the information you provide in its published report. Therefore, you should indicate in your submission whether any specified parts of it are commercially confidential. If the SAU wishes to refer in its published report to material identified as confidential, it will contact you in advance.

For further details on confidentiality of third party submissions, see identifying confidential information in the Operation of the subsidy control functions of the Subsidy Advice Unit.

Contacts

• CMA press team: 020 3738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk

Published 21 December 2023
Last updated 6 February 2024 + show all updates

La CNMC investiga posibles prácticas anticompetitivas en el mercado de servicios de consultoría y asistencia técnica en ingeniería

06 Feb 2024 |Competencia Nota de prensa

• Afectarían al reparto de licitaciones convocadas para la prestación de servicios de consultoría y asistencia técnica en ingeniería, en particular, de planificación, construcción y explotación de carreteras.
• Del 30 de enero al 2 de febrero la CNMC realizó inspecciones en las sedes de varias empresas que operan en ese mercado.
• Estas inspecciones constituyen un paso preliminar a la posible incoación de un expediente sancionador.

La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) investiga posibles prácticas anticompetitivas en el mercado de servicios de consultoría y asistencia técnica en ingeniería. En concreto, consistirían en acuerdos y/o prácticas concertadas de reparto de licitaciones convocadas para la prestación de servicios de consultoría y asistencia técnica en ingeniería, en particular, de planificación, construcción y explotación de carreteras. Las inspecciones se llevaron a cabo entre el 30 de enero y el 2 de febrero de 2024.

Estas inspecciones suponen un paso preliminar en el proceso de investigación de las supuestas conductas anticompetitivas y no prejuzgan el resultado de la investigación ni la culpabilidad de las empresas inspeccionadas. Si como resultado de la inspección se encontrasen indicios de prácticas prohibidas se incoará un expediente sancionador.

La CNMC recuerda que los acuerdos entre competidores constituyen una infracción muy grave de la legislación de competencia, que puede conllevar multas de hasta el 10 % del volumen de negocios total de las empresas infractoras. De hecho, la investigación de los cárteles constituye una de las prioridades de actuación de la CNMC, dada la especial gravedad de sus consecuencias sobre los consumidores y el correcto funcionamiento de los mercados.

Para ello se cuenta, entre otros, con el programa de clemencia que permite a las empresas que forman parte de un cártel beneficiarse de la exención del pago de la multa, siempre y cuando aporten elementos de prueba que posibiliten a la CNMC su detección, o de una reducción del importe de la multa que pudiera imponérsele, si aporta información con valor añadido significativo, en relación con una investigación ya iniciada por la CNMC.

Además de la exención del pago de la multa o la reducción de su cuantía, las empresas solicitantes de clemencia también quedan exceptuadas de la prohibición de contratar establecida en el artículo 71 de la Ley de Contratos del Sector Público para los sancionados por infracción grave en materia de falseamiento de la competencia. Ello es así en aplicación del artículo 72.5 de la citada ley, y de los artículos 65.4 y 66.5 de la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia, en los que se regula el programa de clemencia.

La CNMC también dispone de una plataforma online de colaboración ciudadana para la detección de cárteles. Esta plataforma, denominada Sistema de Informantes de Competencia Anónimos (SICA), permite informar de forma anónima sobre prácticas anticompetitivas, tales como acuerdos entre empresas competidoras para la fijación de precios u otras condiciones comerciales, reparto de los mercados o de los clientes, o repartos fraudulentos de las licitaciones públicas o privadas.
 
Contenido relacionado:

• Guía sobre contratación pública
• Programa de clemencia
• Sistema de Informantes de Competencia Anónimos (SICA)
• Comunicación 1/2023, de 13 de junio (prohibición de contratar)

 Nota de prensa 

 Press release

Documento no oficial destinado a los medios de comunicación y que no vincula a la CNMC.  Reproducción permitida solo si se cita a la fuente.

La CNMC inicia un expediente sancionador contra la empresa de armamento militar Rheinmetall

05 Feb 2024 |Competencia Nota de prensa

• En febrero de 2023, la CNMC autorizó la compra de Expal Systems por Rheinmetall.
• Posteriormente la CNMC tuvo conocimiento de que la información aportada por Rheinmetall, en la que se basó la autorización, podría haber sido incompleta y engañosa.

La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha iniciado un expediente sancionador contra Rheinmetall, A.G. por una posible obstrucción a la labor de la CNMC. La empresa de armamento militar habría aportado información incompleta y engañosa en el marco de la notificación de la compra de Expal Systems (SNC/DC/081/23).

Esta obstrucción habría vulnerado el artículo 62.3.c) de la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia.

Obstrucción de la labor de la CNMC

La CNMC autorizó en febrero de 2023 la compra de Expal Systems por Rheinmetall (C/1368/23). No obstante, un cliente de las partes recurrió la autorización ante la Audiencia Nacional. 

A raíz del recurso, la CNMC abrió una información reservada para comprobar si la operación afectaba a una serie de mercados (fabricación y comercialización de nitrocelulosa, nitroglicerina y pasta húmeda), que Rheinmetall habría omitido durante la notificación. Además, parte de la información aportada por la empresa podría haber sido engañosa. 

Estas prácticas supondrían una infracción grave de la normativa de competencia y podrían implicar una sanción de hasta el 5 % del volumen de negocios total de la empresa infractora en el ejercicio anterior al de la imposición de la multa.

La incoación de este expediente no prejuzga el resultado final de la investigación. Se abre ahora un período máximo de 3 meses para la instrucción del expediente y su resolución por la CNMC.

Contenido relacionado:

• SNC/DC/081/23: Rheinmetall
• C/1368/23: Rheinmetall/Expal
• Nota de prensa (13/03/2023): La CNMC autorizó ocho operaciones de concentración en el mes de febrero
• Blog (25/04/2017): En la CNMC vigilamos las concentraciones entre las empresas

Nota de prensa

Press release

Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente. 

Commission welcomes continued airline competition on the routes from Amsterdam to the US

Page contents

• Top
• Related topics
• Print friendly pdf
• Contacts for media

The European Commission welcomes the positive developments at Amsterdam airport enabling new entrant JetBlue Airways Corporation (‘JetBlue’) to continue operating at the airport over the IATA Summer 2024 Season.

The Commission has actively and closely monitored the evolution of the market conditions at Amsterdam airport. Specifically, this concerned the degree of congestion of the airport and the operations of the Blue Skies joint venture (‘JV’) between Air France-KLM Group, Delta and Virgin Atlantic, to identify any risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition for transatlantic traffic, in particular on the Amsterdam-New York route. The Commission stood ready to intervene with interim measures in case JetBlue did not secure appropriate access to Amsterdam airport for the IATA Summer 2024 Season.

Between 2010 and 2015, the Commission investigated three JVs related to transatlantic passenger services: (i) Oneworld Atlantic Joint Business(American Airlines, British Airways, Finnair and Iberia), (ii) Star A++ (Air Canada, United Airlines and Lufthansa), and (iii) the TAJV between Skyteammembers Air France-KLM Group, Alitalia and Delta. In 2020, the Blue Skies JV between Air France-KLM Group, Delta and Virgin Atlantic replaced the TAJV and the former JV between Delta and Virgin Atlantic.

The JVs bring together EU and US airlines, which agree to combine their resources and share revenues on transatlantic routes linking their hub airports, as well as routes that connect those hubs to certain ‘behind and beyond’ destinations in Europe and the US.

As a result of its investigations, the Commission found that, on certain hub-to-hub transatlantic routes such as Amsterdam-New York, the entry of a new competitor or the expansion of an existing competitor was necessary to remedy the distortive effects of the joint ventures.

In late IATA Summer 2023 Season, US carrier JetBlue started offering daily direct passenger transport services on the Amsterdam-New York and Amsterdam-Boston routes. JetBlue’s entry revived competition to the benefit of consumers between the three airlines offering direct transatlantic services at Amsterdam airport, namely: two Blue Skies members (KLM and Delta) and United Airlines.

However, due to the tight capacity constraints at Amsterdam airport, JetBlue had not been able to obtain all of the slots it had requested during the initial phases of the slot allocation procedure for the IATA Summer 2024 Season. There was therefore a risk that JetBlue would have had to discontinue its operations on those routes as of 30 March 2024.

JetBlue has improved its slot portfolio at Amsterdam airport during the later phases of the slot allocation procedure and has eventually obtained all the slots it needs to continue operating at Amsterdam airport throughout the IATA Summer 2024 Season. As a result, consumers will not be deprived of choice at a time of strong demand for transatlantic services.  

The Commission will continue its monitoring ahead of the IATA Summer 2025 Season.

Related topics

Competition

Antitrust

Print friendly pdf

Air France/KLM/Delta/Virgin Atlantic

English

33.309, kB – PDF

Download  

50+1 proceeding – Current stage of the proceeding

Date of issue:06.02.2024

In its proceeding to assess under competition law the so-called 50+1 rule, the Bundeskartellamt has informed Deutsche Fußball Liga (DFL) and the third parties admitted to the proceeding of the current stage of and the next steps in the proceeding.

In its assessment under competition law of DFL’s proposals for amending its League Statutes (see press release of 13 July 2023), the Bundeskartellamt now also has to take into consideration the European Court of Justice’s most recent case law. The Court passed three judgments on 21 December 2023 clarifying the relation between sports association rules and competition law (case C-333/21 “European Superleague Company”; case C 124/21 “ISU”; case C-680/21 “Royal Antwerp”).

Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt: “We will examine these judgments and discuss what effect they may have on our assessment and the next steps in the 50+1 proceeding.”

The proceeding will be continued by the Bundeskartellamt’s 6th Decision Division, which generally deals with sport and media. Until now the 11th Decision Division has been in charge of the proceeding. Due to necessary organisational restructuring, this Decision Division is now mainly responsible for abuse control relating to energy price relief measures. The 6th Decision Division, on the other hand, is also responsible for matters such as assessing DFL’s sale of the media rights to football matches (see, for example, press release of 30 January 2024). Having all proceedings relating to sports association rules handled by one Decision Division will help ensure a consistent implementation of the European Court of Justice’s judgments mentioned above.

The fact that the 50+1 proceeding will be continued by the 6th Decision Division also resolves the allegations of bias against the previous case handlers raised by HAM International Limited, a company admitted to the proceeding owned by Hassan Ismaik, an investor in TSV 1860 München. Allegations of bias were also made against a member of the 6th Decision Division who will continue to be involved in the proceeding. However, an extensive internal investigation has shown that these allegations were unfounded.

Press release (pdf)

Casos

CADE

Ato de Concentração nº: 08700.006814/2023-77

Requerentes: MINERVA S.A. E MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.

Advogados das Requerentes: Onofre Carlos de Arruda Sampaio, André Cutait de Arruda Sampaio, Suzane Nascimento (MINERVA S.A.), Victor Santos Rufino, Victor Cavalcanti Couto, Maria Carolina Bernardo de Souza, Victoria de Almeida Richa e outros (MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS S.A.).

Peticionante: CONFEDERAÇÃO DA AGRICULTURA E PECUÁRIA DO BRASIL (“CNA”)

Advogados da Peticionante: Carlos Bastide Horbach, Carolina Carvalhais Vieira de Melo, Elisabete Ribeiro Alcântara Lopes, Fabrício Sousa Cunha, Luiz Fabiano de Oliveira Rosa, Rhuan Rafael Lopes de Oliveira, Rodrigo de Oliveira Kaufmann, Rodrigo Hugueney do Amaral Mello, Rudy Maia Ferraz, Taciana Machado de Bastos, Viviane Faulhaber Dutra de Magalhães e Welber Pereira dos Santos

Com fulcro no §1º do art. 50 da Lei nº 9.784, de 1999, integro as razões da Nota Técnica nº 2/2024/CGAA1/SGA1/SG/CADE (ut doc. SEI nº 1336885) à presente decisão, inclusive como sua motivação. Pelos fundamentos apontados na Nota Técnica citada, decido pelo deferimento do pedido de intervenção como terceiro interessado da Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil (“CNA”) (representada por Carlos Bastide Horbach, Carolina Carvalhais Vieira de Melo, Elisabete Ribeiro Alcântara Lopes, Fabrício Sousa Cunha, Luiz Fabiano de Oliveira Rosa, Rhuan Rafael Lopes de Oliveira, Rodrigo de Oliveira Kaufmann, Rodrigo Hugueney do Amaral Mello, Rudy Maia Ferraz, Taciana Machado de Bastos, Viviane Faulhaber Dutra de Magalhães e Welber Pereira dos Santos), nos termos do art. 50, I, da Lei nº 12.529, de 2011.

CMA

• SpreadEx / Sporting Index merger inquiry
  • 6 February 2024
  • Competition and Markets Authority case

Comissão Europeia

SILVER LAKE / DIGITALBRIDGE / VANTAGE NA DATA CENTER ASSETS

Merger

M.11434

Last decision date: 05.02.2024 Super simplified procedure

MC / DTHAG / MMC / JV

Merger

M.11424

Last decision date:05.02.2024 Super simplified procedure

DIÁRIO OFICIAL DA UNIÃOPublicado em: 05/02/2024 | Edição: 25 | Seção: 1 | Página: 21Órgão: Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública/Conselho Administrativo de Defesa EconômicaDESPACHO...

Projeto altera regras de nomeação e mandato de presidente e vice de juntas comerciais

Pela proposta, a nomeação ficará a cargo do governador, que poderá escolher qualquer pessoa de sua confiança Compartilhe Versão para impressão

0 Comentários

05/02/2024 – 08:39  

Zeca Ribeiro / Câmara dos Deputados

Merlong Solano acredita que exigência atual para o cargo não é constitucional

O Projeto de Lei 315/23 altera a duração do mandato de presidente e vice-presidente das juntas comerciais e permite que os governadores nomeiem livremente qualquer cidadão para os cargos.  A Câmara dos Deputados analisa a proposta.

Na prática, o texto permite que governadores de estado ou do Distrito Federal nomeiem como presidente e vice-presidente das juntas comerciais qualquer pessoa de sua confiança, e não apenas membros do chamado conselho de vogais – órgão deliberativo superior das juntas comerciais, responsável pelo julgamento de recursos.

Os vogais são normalmente escolhidos entre representantes de entidades como a Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil, conselhos regionais de Economia e Contabilidade, além de federações e sindicatos.

“A exigência de o ocupante do cargo ser vogal não encontra respaldo no texto constitucional, uma vez que os cargos em comissão são aqueles ocupados de forma temporária por pessoa de confiança da autoridade competente”, argumenta o autor, deputado Merlong Solano (PT-PI).

Outra alteração estabelece que ainda que os mandatos do presidente e do vice-presidente estejam vinculados à duração das nomeações aos respectivos cargos. Atualmente, a lei estabelece para todos os vogais, incluindo presidente e vice, mandato de 4 anos, com uma recondução.

O texto altera a Lei do Registro Público de Empresas Mercantis.

Tramitação
A proposta será analisada, em caráter conclusivo, pelas comissões de Indústria, Comércio e Serviços; e de Constituição e Justiça e de Cidadania.

• Saiba mais sobre a tramitação de projetos de lei

Reportagem – Murilo Souza
Edição – Rodrigo Bittar

Fonte: Agência Câmara de Notícias

Projeto isenta consumidores do Amapá de custos de transmissão de energia enquanto o abastecimento for precário

Na Câmara, proposta precisa passar pela análise de quatro comissões temáticas Compartilhe Versão para impressão

0 Comentários

05/02/2024 – 10:13  

Zeca Ribeiro / Câmara dos Deputados

O deputado Acácio Favacho, autor da proposta

O Projeto de Lei 4435/23 isenta consumidores e concessionárias do Amapá de arcar com os custos de transmissão de energia elétrica enquanto não houver o abastecimento devido no estado.

Pelo texto, a isenção será realizada conforme regulamentação da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (Aneel). Já o retorno da cobrança será escalonado ao longo de 4 anos, após a entrada em operação comercial das instalações de transmissão de energia elétrica. O objetivo do retorno escalonado é evitar impacto tarifário acentuado.

Atualmente, a concessionária responsável pela distribuição de energia elétrica no Amapá é a Companhia de Eletricidade do Amapá (CEA) que, em 2015 foi ligada ao Sistema Interligado Nacional (SIN), por meio da interligação Tucuruí-Macapá-Manaus.

Sistemas isolados
O autor do projeto, deputado Acácio Favacho (MDB-AP), explica que mesmo depois da incorporação da CEA ao SIN, as pesquisas apontam que cerca de 43 mil usuários permanecem sendo atendidos por meio de sistemas isolados.

Favacho argumenta que esse isolamento deve-se pelo fato de a conexão de as instalações da CEA ao SIN serem feitas apenas por uma subestação em funcionamento no estado.

Segundo ele, é a mesma subestação responsável pelo apagão ocorrido em novembro de 2020 e em janeiro de 2021, que deixou 13 dos 16 munícipios do estado sem energia elétrica.

“A proposta, ao isentar todos os consumidores do Amapá, por meio da isenção à própria CEA, fará com que os custos relacionados ao transporte de energia sejam absorvidos pelos mercados consumidores de todas as distribuidoras de energia conectadas ao SIN”, explica o parlamentar.

Tramitação
O projeto, que tramita em caráter conclusivo, será analisado pelas comissões de Defesa do Consumidor; de Minas e Energia; de Finanças e Tributação; e de Constituição e Justiça e de Cidadania.

• Saiba mais sobre a tramitação de projetos de lei

Reportagem – Luiz Gustavo Xavier
Edição – Rachel Librelon

Fonte: Agência Câmara de Notícias

Projeto altera regra sobre assinatura digital nos processos de investigação de defesa comercial

O projeto ainda será despachado para as comissões da Câmara Compartilhe Versão para impressão

0 Comentários

02/02/2024 – 15:57  

GettyImages

O Projeto de Lei 5128/23 revoga a obrigatoriedade da assinatura digital com a certificação emitida pela Infraestrutura de Chaves Públicas Brasileira (ICP-Brasil) aos atos processuais relativos às investigações de defesa comercial. 

De acordo com a proposta do Poder Executivo, em análise na Câmara dos Deputados, o uso de meio eletrônico será admitido, mas não obrigatório,  nos procedimentos relativos às investigações de defesa comercial, conforme estabelecido em regulamentação da Secretaria de Comércio Exterior do Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços. A justificativa do projeto é assinada pelo ministro da pasta, Geraldo Alckmin.

“A medida visa simplificar os procedimentos administrativos em investigações de defesa comercial conduzidas Ministério, tendo em vista que permitirá a utilização de outros mecanismos de assinatura digital já implementados na Administração Pública e que garantem a segurança necessária para a realização dos procedimentos administrativos e verificações de autenticidade”, afirma.

A proposta altera a Lei 12.995/14, a qual, segundo Alckmin, foi formulada quando havia a necessidade de exclusividade no uso da certificação digital emitida pela ICP-Brasil. “Atualmente, existem outras regras que regulamentam a assinatura e a validade dos documentos em meio digital que são mais flexíveis”, explica. 

Tramitação
O projeto ainda será despachado para as comissões da Câmara. 

Saiba mais sobre a tramitação de projetos de lei

Reportagem – Lara Haje
Edição – Rachel Librelon

Fonte: Agência Câmara de Notícias

Anvisa republica nota técnica sobre serviços de estética e embelezamentoDocumento traz orientações para Vigilâncias Sanitárias...

ANA

ANAC

No momento, não há Consultas Públicas em andamento.

ANP

Consulta e Audiência Públicas nº 19/2023

Obter contribuições sobre minuta revisora da Resolução ANP nº 791, de 2019, que dispõe sobre a individualização das metas compulsórias anuais de redução de emissões de gases geradores do efeito estufa para a comercialização de combustíveis, no âmbito da Política Nacional de Biocombustíveis (RenovaBio), para incluir hipótese de redução das metas a partir de contratos de longo prazo firmados entre distribuidores de combustíveis e empresas comercializadoras de etanol. 
Consulta Pública: 29/12/2023 a 14/02/2024 
Audiência Pública: 13/03/2024, de 14h30 até 17h30

Consulta e Audiência Públicas nº 18/2023

Obter, dos entes beneficiários e outros interessados, contribuições para a revisão da Resolução ANP nº 874, de 18 de abril de 2022, que estabelece os critérios para fixação do Preço de Referência do Petróleo, adotado no cálculo das participações governamentais. 
Consulta Pública: 27/12/2023 a 15/02/2024 
Audiência Pública: 06/03/2024, de 14h até 17h30

Consulta Pública nº 17/2023

Obter subsídios e informações adicionais sobre a proposta tarifária da empresa Nova Transportadora do Sudeste – NTS para o Processo de Oferta e Contratação de Capacidade disponível de transporte de gás natural nos gasodutos que compõem a sua rede de gasodutos. Pretende-se também estipular a Receita Máxima Permitida da NTS, assim como as respectivas tarifas de referência aplicáveis ao serviço de transporte firme, em cumprimento ao disposto no caput do art. 4º c/c o parágrafo único e caput do art. 9º da Nova Lei do Gás (Lei 14.134/2021).
Consulta Pública: 27/12/2023 a 09/02/2024

ANEEL

Audiência 001/2024

Objeto – Obter subsídios para aprimorar a proposta referente à Revisão Tarifária Periódica de 2024 da Equatorial Alagoas Distribuidora de Energia S.A., a vigorar a partir de 3 de maio de 2024.

ANTT

Notícias

Cade lança segundo relatório sobre economia digital

Material aprofunda debate sobre políticas de concorrência na economia digitalCompartilhe:

  Compartilhe por Facebook Compartilhe por Twitter Compartilhe por LinkedIn Compartilhe por WhatsApplink para Copiar para área de transferência

Publicado em 02/02/2024 17h53

OConselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) lançou, nesta sexta-feira (02/02), o relatório Brics in the Digital Economy: Competition Policy in Practice (2nd Report). Este trabalho busca apresentar os resultados do grupo de trabalho criado durante a 5ª Conferência sobre Concorrência Brics, que ocorreu em Brasília, em 2017.  

A série dos documentos elaborados tem como objetivo melhorar a compreensão das políticas de concorrência na economia digital, além de aprimorar a cooperação futura entre as autoridades.  

O propósito deste segundo relatório, que não tem caráter de norma, é aprofundar o escopo do debate sobre mercados digitais, tanto na avaliação de fusões e aquisições como de condutas anticoncorrenciais no ambiente digital, identificando pontos comuns e promovendo debate sobre algumas das principais características dos mercados digitais. 

Estão entre os temas tratados no material: a definição de “mercado relevante” nos mercados digitais, critérios para avaliar o poder de mercado, análise de desafios específicos suscitados em casos de condutas anticompetitivas, fusões e remédios em mercados digitais, entre outros. 

O primeiro relatório foi lançado em 2019 durante a VI Conferência sobre Concorrência do Brics (VI Brics Competition Conference), realizada em Moscou, na Rússia. O material fornece uma visão geral da política de concorrência e enforcement nos países do bloco econômico, abordando diferentes experiências na aplicação de normas antitruste e explorando desafios e insights de cada um dos países representados.  

A atividade do grupo de trabalho partiu de um questionário que sondou as práticas e desafios enfrentados no âmbito da economia digital pelas autoridades de concorrência do Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul, então partícipes do bloco econômico até 2023. A expectativa é que o material crie uma base sólida para os integrantes do bloco fortalecerem a cooperação. 

Clique aqui para acessar o relatório na íntegra. 

A transatlantic perspective from the UK’s CMA

A speech delivered by Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, to the GCR Live: Law Leaders Global 2024 conference.From:Competition and Markets Authority and Sarah CardellPublished2 February 2024Location:MiamiDelivered on:2 February 2024 (Speaker’s notes, may differ from delivered version)

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to deliver the closing address at the end of a fascinating conference. It’s particularly timely for me to follow the panel discussion just now on “Atlantic convergence or divergence” and to provide some perspectives directly from the United Kingdom.

Many of you will be familiar with the work of the UK Competition and Markets Authority to some extent: most likely in the context of merger control, or perhaps the incoming digital markets competition regime in the UK. I would like to take this opportunity to put the CMA’s work in context for you all as a predominantly US-based audience, including explaining a little about how we operate as a competition and consumer protection agency – what motivates the outcomes we seek to achieve and the way we work. In doing that, I’ll venture a little myth-busting, to address some of the misconceptions I hear from time to time. I will give some particular insights into our merger control and digital markets work, together with a few practical tips on how best to engage with the CMA if you are a US business or advisor. And I’ll offer my own perspective on both the importance, and limits, of international coordination.

What makes the CMA tick: our purpose and ambition

The CMA is the UK’s principal competition and consumer protection authority. We have a range of legal powers and responsibilities including merger control, enforcing against breaches of competition law and consumer protection law, and conducting wider ranging market studies and investigations. In our 2023 to 2024 Annual Plan we set out the CMA’s purpose: “to help people, businesses and the UK economy by promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour.”

We also set out how this purpose shapes our ambition in terms of the outcomes we want to deliver, so that:

• “people can be confident they are getting great choices and fair deals
• competitive, fair-dealing businesses can innovate and thrive; and
• the whole UK economy can grow productively and sustainably”

As representatives of US businesses, you may be thinking that this is of little relevance to your own interests. Perhaps, for you, UK merger control chiefly represents a barrier standing in the way of getting a great deal through.

Unsurprisingly, I am going to offer a different perspective: that it is in the interests of every US company that does business in the UK to have a robust, independent UK competition authority protecting free and open markets. Why? Because those are the market conditions that foster growth and innovation. The conditions which drive genuine competitive benefits for companies – large and small – selling products or services to UK businesses or consumers. The competitive pressure, the dynamism which I’m describing, has been one of the cornerstones of America’s economic success. It establishes a powerful drive for value creation. These market conditions which the CMA protects and fosters are exactly those which generate positive returns to investors, as well as delivering a wealth of benefits for consumers and the broader economy.

So, supporting investment, innovation and growth by protecting competitive markets is an explicit focus for the CMA. We do this in the interests of UK consumers, businesses, and our economy. But in doing so, we also advance the interests of every fair-dealing US company serving UK markets that strives to grow and to compete on a level playing field. And we advance the interests of every investor seeking to make a fair return on their capital by doing business in the UK.

UK merger control: a view from the inside – out

I said at the start that I would like to do a little myth-busting, and in particular address some misconceptions that sometimes arise about the scope, purpose, and impact of the UK merger control regime.

Jurisdictional reach of UK merger control

First, when and why do we look at deals involving non-UK companies? I sometimes hear it said that the CMA is over-reaching by reviewing a deal between 2 US companies. Or that a US investor is reluctant to fund a UK start-up for fear a subsequent sell-out would be blocked by the CMA. Let me address these concerns directly.

The jurisdictional tests in our legislation are designed to ensure that we can review deals that have a material effect on the UK, even if the transaction takes place between two non-UK companies, with its ‘centre of gravity’ elsewhere. More precisely, our legal thresholds give the CMA jurisdiction to review a transaction in 2 scenarios: either where the UK turnover of the company being acquired exceeds £70 million; or where the merging companies will together supply more than 25 per cent of a particular good or service in the UK, or a substantial part of it (and where the merger results in an increment to that share of supply).

In many cases, large international deals will comfortably meet the UK turnover threshold. But some global deals may come within our jurisdiction because they satisfy the share of supply test. This test is a long-standing feature of the UK regime. It is worth noting that the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Bill currently going through UK Parliament, which I’m going to come to later, will also enable the CMA to review a deal where there is no horizontal increment. This could be a purely vertical or conglomerate merger, or the acquisition of a nascent competitor.

These tests enable the CMA to review a deal. But we must apply a further and separate test before we can block it. That requires us to find that it is “more likely than not” that the transaction will result in a substantial lessening of competition.

A detailed explanation of our approach to jurisdiction is available in guidance published on our website. And there are other mechanisms parties can use to help manage concerns or questions. It’s worth emphasising here that the UK regime doesn’t require mandatory notifications so for deals where there is genuinely no competitive impact in the UK there is no need for us to review. To assist with understanding whether a review is needed, merging parties can submit a short briefing paper to our Mergers Intelligence Committee for an early view on jurisdiction and whether we think a deal needs to be called in for a what we call a ‘phase 1 review’. Do look on our website for more details about this process if you are not aware of it.

It is important to emphasise that the CMA only looks at deals where there is an impact on UK markets. So, for example, we would not on our own initiative review a merger between 2 US companies which had no competitive impact in the UK, regardless of whether it exceeded our jurisdictional thresholds. Equally, we do not review a deal simply because the target company happens to be based in the UK. This applies to start-ups in exactly the same way it does to established businesses – if an acquisition impacts UK consumers in the way I have outlined, a start-up based here in Miami will be equally within our jurisdiction as one based in the UK. So the scope of UK merger control really shouldn’t be a relevant factor for investors considering whether to fund a UK start-up.

The CMA is a more active global merger control authority than previously but we are not “anti-mergers”, and our interventions are proportionate

Turning from jurisdiction to the substantive purpose of merger control in the UK – the second misconception I’d like to tackle is around the reason for the CMA’s intervention in more of these larger, international mergers in recent years. In large part this reflects a legal change brought about by the UK’s exit from the EU. Prior to that, the UK element of many of these transactions would have been reviewed by the European Commission. Now, that is the responsibility of the CMA.

I have heard it suggested in some quarters that the CMA is “anti-mergers” almost by default, particularly when it comes to deals involving the so-called GAMMA firms. Fortunately, our well-documented track record on merger control demonstrates that we take an objective, evidence-based and proportionate approach. It is certainly correct that we have evolved our analytical approach when assessing mergers in digital markets, in part reflecting well-documented and widely recognised historic under-enforcement in this area. But each case we consider is reviewed objectively on its own merits.

And you don’t have to just take my word for it, let’s look at the numbers. The latest estimates that I’ve seen suggest that there were around 50,000 M&A deals last year (PWC, Bloomberg) during which period the CMA looked at around 700 cases. The large majority of these, including the great majority of those involving start-ups, were considered by our Mergers Intelligence Committee and dismissed without any formal review. In fact, in the 2022 to 2023 financial year (from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023), we conducted only 14 in-depth phase 2 investigations and prohibited only 3 deals (with a further 3 abandoned during the review process). And this balanced approach applies in the tech sector too. Over recent years, we have cleared a number of high-profile transactions either unconditionally or subject to remedies. Recent examples include: Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware; Viasat’s acquisition of Inmarsat; Facebook’s acquisition of Kustomer; Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot; and Microsoft’s acquisitions of Nuance and, following a substantial restructuring of the transaction, Activision.

I hope this data is making clear what is not, perhaps, always clear from reading media headlines.  That whilst the CMA will not shy away from taking, and defending, robust decisions to prevent anti-competitive mergers which would harm UK consumers or businesses, our interventions are proportionate and focus only on the handful of deals that are problematic each year.

And coming back to start-ups again briefly, our merger control regime exists to safeguard and nurture free and competitive markets in which all businesses can grow and thrive. But it also helps maintain a range of exit strategies for investors. In many cases a trade sale will be unproblematic from a merger control perspective, including to a larger company, provided there is sufficient competition remaining in the market. Of course, if the only exit route that has been contemplated is the sale to a dominant incumbent competitor, that might suggest an unduly narrow exit strategy.

UK merger control is subject to robust and effective scrutiny

I have talked about when we intervene, and why we intervene. Now I want to turn to how we intervene, and to explain the safeguards that have been built into the UK merger control regime to ensure robust, independent and effective scrutiny.  

First, it’s important to emphasise that the CMA is set up by law to take its merger control decisions free from political influence.

Turning to our process, the UK merger control system (in common with many other jurisdictions but unlike here in the US) provides for ‘administrative decision-making’. This means it is the CMA taking decisions in the first instance, rather than a court. Because we are decision-makers, we must weigh up both sides of the argument and set out an objective, balanced view of the evidence underpinning our decision. We engage extensively with the merger parties to make sure we understand their arguments, and to give them a fair opportunity to present their views around the potential competition concerns that have been identified, and any possible remedies. We also consult widely with third parties and gather a large amount of information from multiple sources. As a practical tip for engaging with the CMA, I really would emphasise that we welcome and encourage early contact with merging companies, and we are genuinely open to discussions and early feedback.

I am going to become a bit technical about our process here, but bear with me – because this is one of the key features which should give businesses and investors confidence in the integrity of the UK regime.

Like many other jurisdictions, we operate a two-stage review. In both our phase 1 and phase 2 processes, the UK model allows parties to make their arguments directly to the decision makers who take their decisions independently, and in circumstances that minimise the risk of confirmation bias. But for phase 2, meaning the most complex merger cases requiring in-depth investigation, the decision to approve or prohibit the merger (or to accept remedies) is taken by an independent Inquiry Group. The group members are selected for each case from an independent CMA panel appointed by the UK government and are not CMA employees. They have deep expertise drawn from a variety of relevant professions. This independence is hard-wired into the statutory regime and deeply embedded in the long-standing practice of the CMA. This is a crucial piece of institutional governance design, which has earned the UK a strong reputation for high-quality independent decision-making.

And, of course, our decisions can be challenged before the courts. The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (or CAT) is a specialist appeal body which holds the CMA accountable for the legality and rationality of our merger decisions, and the fairness of our decision-making process. The CAT’s scrutiny is every bit as challenging as you would expect, as some of the lawyers in the room who may follow these cases will know.

Merger investigation process reforms

It is worth noting that we are currently in the process of consulting on planned reforms to our phase 2 merger investigation process with the aim of maintaining “best in class” procedures for merger control in the UK which are clear, transparent, agile, and efficient. Proposals include an earlier focus during the phase 2 investigation on the key issues at stake in the case, as well as improving the opportunities for all businesses affected by a merger to engage with the CMA Inquiry Group overseeing the investigation and changes to our process for considering remedies. We’ll be publishing an update on those reforms in the next couple of months so do look out for that.

A new UK regime to promote competition in digital markets

Turning now from merger control – one of the CMA’s most established regimes – to a new regime for competition in digital markets, which the UK government has designed with the intention of making the UK one of the best places in the world for technology innovation and investment.

The pace and scale of digital transformation has been extraordinary, bringing enormous benefits for people, businesses and economies across the globe. In the UK, the digital sector is growing rapidly, attracting substantial investment, contributing billions of pounds to the economy and creating millions of jobs.

At the same time, we’ve seen the concentration of market power in the hands of a small number of technology firms across various digital markets. Many jurisdictions around the world have concluded that traditional competition law regimes and powers are insufficient to address the impact of that concentration of power in a timely and effective way. We are now seeing new powers being introduced, for example in the EU and Germany.

The UK’s trajectory on this has been consistent for some years. In 2018, the UK government commissioned Professor Jason Furman (a former advisor to President Obama) to lead a review of the UK’s own competition framework in relation to digital markets. In response to recommendations in that review, and recognising the many benefits of digital markets, the UK government is now introducing a new pro-competition digital markets regime to address the market power of a small number of technology firms.

It is important to understand that this is not broad brush, one-size-fits-all regulation of the sort that creates barriers to innovation or an unnecessary burden for businesses. Quite the opposite. The regime has been consciously designed to be highly flexible, bespoke, and targeted in its approach. It will focus on what we expect to be a very small number of firms with substantial and entrenched market power in a digital activity linked to the UK; a position of strategic significance; and a global turnover of more than £25 billion or UK turnover of more than £1 billion. These firms will be designated with Strategic Market Status (SMS) in relation to one or more digital activities.

Tools – CRs and PCIs

Once the CMA designates a firm with SMS, 2 tools become available: Conduct Requirements and Pro-Competition Interventions.

The CMA will be able to impose Conduct Requirements where this would be proportionate to achieve one or more of 3 legislative objectives: fair dealing, open choices, and trust and transparency. The requirements would then be used to guide the behaviour of SMS firms not only to address existing issues, but also to prevent them taking advantage of their powerful positions to exploit consumers and businesses or to undermine fair competition.

Through Pro-Competition Interventions, we will be able to address factors underpinning these firms’ market power in a particular activity. This might include giving people the power to easily transfer their data between providers, or requiring interoperability so that different products and services work with each other. The aim is to create longer-term, dynamic changes in these activities, opening up opportunities for greater competition and innovation.

What I am describing here is a modern, fit-for-the-future digital markets competition regime. One designed to prevent harmful practices that hold back innovation and growth, opening up new paths for entrepreneurs, challengers and start-ups struggling to enter, grow, and compete in digital markets. A regime which can keep pace with developments in fast-moving digital markets. And one which, crucially, will include ongoing dialogue with potential designated firms and broader stakeholders, to ensure the CMA maintains a deep understanding of relevant markets and technologies to inform our assessments and any potential interventions.  

A targeted, evidence based, proportionate and participative approach

The new powers that the Digital Markets competition regime will grant the CMA are substantial and we are committed to taking a demonstrably targeted, evidence-based and proportionate approach to implementing them. Understandably, stakeholders are keen to know more about what this means in practice. I would encourage anyone with this in mind to read the overview document the CMA published last month providing further detail on how we will operate the new regime. Once the UK Parliament passes the DMCC Bill (which we hope will be later this Spring), we will release more detailed draft guidance for consultation so do please look out for that. We expect the operation of the new regime will formally commence towards the end of this year. We anticipate launching the first SMS investigations soon after we receive the powers to do so and expect to initiate approximately 3 to 4 SMS investigations in the first year of the new regime. In our Overview document we emphasise how important it will be for this regime to be truly participative, built on wide-ranging engagement with stakeholders large and small and we encourage you all to play a part in that.

CMA perspective on international cooperation

Now, perhaps it goes without saying, as I deliver this speech at an international conference, that in this globalised world of interconnected markets, international cooperation and communication is more important than ever for the competition community. To have positive impact in the UK, the CMA must be an active member of that community internationally.

One reason for this, which I think we are all conscious of, is the importance for businesses of international alignment. Whilst all competition authorities remain independent and sovereign in their decisions, we do strive for close relationships and knowledge sharing with our fellow enforcement agencies in the US, the EU and elsewhere. International fora like the OECD and ICN offer great opportunities to bring agencies together. Businesses themselves can also help facilitate a joined-up approach, through waivers and through keeping agencies updated on international developments, for example.   

Areas of cooperation and overall approach

How does this inter-agency cooperation play out in practice?

Well, in mergers, our experience is that open channels of communications between different authorities internationally reviewing the same transaction are generally beneficial – both for the authorities themselves and the merging parties. We see procedural benefits in allowing us, as far as possible, to align on process and timing. And where the markets concerned have regional or global dynamics, it can assist our substantive assessments, including resulting in more aligned outcomes across different jurisdictions.

The recent Adobe/Figma deal, for example, involved a merger in the creative design sector. A number of agencies were reviewing the merger alongside the CMA, including the US Department of Justice and the European Commission. The Commission published its Statement of Objections on 17 November, followed closely by the publication of our Provisional Findings on 28 November. Soon after that, on 18 December 2023, the merger parties abandoned the deal.  

Having recognised some efficiencies in coordination, I do want to be clear that consistency of outcome is not an end in itself. With different statutory regimes and different decision makers, as well as variances in market features and evidence bases, instances of divergence are inevitable and entirely proper. This is true both for assessments of competition concerns raised by a merger, and the appropriate solutions to remedy them.

The Microsoft/Activision merger is a case in point. The CMA intervened to prevent Microsoft from reinforcing its incumbency advantage in cloud gaming, an important and rapidly growing form of entertainment for millions of UK consumers. These concerns were shared by the European Commission, with whom we engaged closely throughout. However, while the Commission accepted Microsoft’s original behavioural remedy, we did not. Ultimately the parties put forward a substantially restructured deal to the CMA which addressed our concerns.

International cooperation also extends beyond merger control. For example, in March 2023 we launched an investigation into anti-competitive conduct in the fragrances sector simultaneously, and in consultation with, the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, the European Commission, and the Swiss Competition Commission. That cooperation is important because again, post-Brexit, the CMA’s remit now extends to the UK impact of global cartels and anti-competitive conduct where that UK element might previously have been investigated by the European Commission.

An absolutely key area for international cooperation, as you will no doubt have anticipated, is digital markets which, by dint of their global nature, mean that similar competition issues arise in multiple jurisdictions. For example, the CMA and many of our counterpart organisations in the EU, US, Australia, Japan and beyond are investigating or have investigated issues related to Google’s position in ad tech, Meta’s use of advertising data, Apple’s restrictions on browser engines, Amazon’s use of third-party seller data, and so on. Whilst each authority naturally focuses on what is right for businesses and consumers in its own jurisdiction, none of us wants divergence for its own sake, and it is in all our interests to maximise synergies where we can.

This is why, during the UK’s 2021 G7 Presidency, the CMA worked with our counterparts to develop a compendium of approaches to improving competition in digital markets.

This need for international cooperation will be particularly important as we and other jurisdictions move towards the sorts of ex-ante pro-competition regimes for digital markets I described earlier. The Overview document I referred to earlier makes clear that cooperation with other authorities is front of mind, particularly in relation to the EU Digital Markets Act.

Conclusion

To conclude, I hope this speech has served to demystify the CMA a little, and to lay to rest some of the misconceptions surrounding competition enforcement in the UK. We are rigorous and robust: we will take action where we identify competition concerns that impact UK consumers and businesses. But we are also open-minded, evidenced-based and proportionate. And we are keen to talk – especially directly to businesses, including those from around the world for whom the UK’s free, open and competitive markets offer powerful opportunities for innovation and value creation.

Thank you for listening this afternoon and I look forward to engaging with you all further.

Published 2 February 2024

A Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) e a Frey Aménagement et Promotion (FAP) notificam a criação de uma empresa comum.

Ficha do processo

Ficha do processo

La CNMC inicia un expediente sancionador contra la empresa de armamento militar Rheinmetall

05 Feb 2024 |Competencia Nota de prensa

• En febrero de 2023, la CNMC autorizó la compra de Expal Systems por Rheinmetall.
• Posteriormente la CNMC tuvo conocimiento de que la información aportada por Rheinmetall, en la que se basó la autorización, podría haber sido incompleta y engañosa.

La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha iniciado un expediente sancionador contra Rheinmetall, A.G. por una posible obstrucción a la labor de la CNMC. La empresa de armamento militar habría aportado información incompleta y engañosa en el marco de la notificación de la compra de Expal Systems (SNC/DC/081/23).

Esta obstrucción habría vulnerado el artículo 62.3.c) de la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia.

Obstrucción de la labor de la CNMC

La CNMC autorizó en febrero de 2023 la compra de Expal Systems por Rheinmetall (C/1368/23). No obstante, un cliente de las partes recurrió la autorización ante la Audiencia Nacional. 

A raíz del recurso, la CNMC abrió una información reservada para comprobar si la operación afectaba a una serie de mercados (fabricación y comercialización de nitrocelulosa, nitroglicerina y pasta húmeda), que Rheinmetall habría omitido durante la notificación. Además, parte de la información aportada por la empresa podría haber sido engañosa. 

Estas prácticas supondrían una infracción grave de la normativa de competencia y podrían implicar una sanción de hasta el 5 % del volumen de negocios total de la empresa infractora en el ejercicio anterior al de la imposición de la multa.

La incoación de este expediente no prejuzga el resultado final de la investigación. Se abre ahora un período máximo de 3 meses para la instrucción del expediente y su resolución por la CNMC.

Contenido relacionado:

• SNC/DC/081/23: Rheinmetall
• C/1368/23: Rheinmetall/Expal
• Nota de prensa (13/03/2023): La CNMC autorizó ocho operaciones de concentración en el mes de febrero
• Blog (25/04/2017): En la CNMC vigilamos las concentraciones entre las empresas

Nota de prensa

Press release

Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente. 

Commission welcomes continued airline competition on the routes from Amsterdam to the US

Page contents

• Top
• Related topics
• Print friendly pdf
• Contacts for media

The European Commission welcomes the positive developments at Amsterdam airport enabling new entrant JetBlue Airways Corporation (‘JetBlue’) to continue operating at the airport over the IATA Summer 2024 Season.

The Commission has actively and closely monitored the evolution of the market conditions at Amsterdam airport. Specifically, this concerned the degree of congestion of the airport and the operations of the Blue Skies joint venture (‘JV’) between Air France-KLM Group, Delta and Virgin Atlantic, to identify any risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition for transatlantic traffic, in particular on the Amsterdam-New York route. The Commission stood ready to intervene with interim measures in case JetBlue did not secure appropriate access to Amsterdam airport for the IATA Summer 2024 Season.

Between 2010 and 2015, the Commission investigated three JVs related to transatlantic passenger services: (i) Oneworld Atlantic Joint Business(American Airlines, British Airways, Finnair and Iberia), (ii) Star A++ (Air Canada, United Airlines and Lufthansa), and (iii) the TAJV between Skyteammembers Air France-KLM Group, Alitalia and Delta. In 2020, the Blue Skies JV between Air France-KLM Group, Delta and Virgin Atlantic replaced the TAJV and the former JV between Delta and Virgin Atlantic.

The JVs bring together EU and US airlines, which agree to combine their resources and share revenues on transatlantic routes linking their hub airports, as well as routes that connect those hubs to certain ‘behind and beyond’ destinations in Europe and the US.

As a result of its investigations, the Commission found that, on certain hub-to-hub transatlantic routes such as Amsterdam-New York, the entry of a new competitor or the expansion of an existing competitor was necessary to remedy the distortive effects of the joint ventures.

In late IATA Summer 2023 Season, US carrier JetBlue started offering daily direct passenger transport services on the Amsterdam-New York and Amsterdam-Boston routes. JetBlue’s entry revived competition to the benefit of consumers between the three airlines offering direct transatlantic services at Amsterdam airport, namely: two Blue Skies members (KLM and Delta) and United Airlines.

However, due to the tight capacity constraints at Amsterdam airport, JetBlue had not been able to obtain all of the slots it had requested during the initial phases of the slot allocation procedure for the IATA Summer 2024 Season. There was therefore a risk that JetBlue would have had to discontinue its operations on those routes as of 30 March 2024.

JetBlue has improved its slot portfolio at Amsterdam airport during the later phases of the slot allocation procedure and has eventually obtained all the slots it needs to continue operating at Amsterdam airport throughout the IATA Summer 2024 Season. As a result, consumers will not be deprived of choice at a time of strong demand for transatlantic services.  

The Commission will continue its monitoring ahead of the IATA Summer 2025 Season.

Related topics

Competition

Antitrust

Print friendly pdf

Air France/KLM/Delta/Virgin Atlantic

English

33.309, kB – PDF

Download  

Casos

CADE

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000562/2024-53

Requerentes: Stima GD Investimentos em Geração de Energia S.A. e Serena Desenvolvimento S.A. Advogados: Luis Nagalli, Julia Haddad Niemeyer e Carolina Furlani. Decido pela aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000160/2024-59

Requerentes: Crala Empreendimentos e Participações Ltda. e Crescera Oba Growth Co-Invest I – Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia. Advogados: Renata Fonseca Zuccolo Giannella e Paloma Caetano Almeida. Decido pela aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000491/2024-99

Requerentes: Krosaki Harima Corporation e Indústrias Brasileiras de Artigos Refratários – IBAR – Ltda. Advogados: Eduardo Caminati, Marcio Bueno, Giuliana Gonçalves, Roberto Potter e Clara Lim. Decido pela aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.000244/2024-92

Requerentes: Boskalis Holding B.V. e ALP Maritime Group B.V. Advogados: Marcio Dias Soares, Renata Caied e Pedro Pendeza Anitelle. Decido pela aprovação sem restrições.

Ato de Concentração nº 08700.004702/2023-81

Requerentes: International Consolidated Airlines Group e Air Europa Holding, S.L.

Advogados dos requerentes: Ricardo Inglez de Souza, Stefanie Schmitt Giglio e Paula Santos Fialho.

Com fulcro no §1º do art. 50 da Lei nº 9.784, de 1999, integro as razões da NOTA TÉCNICA Nº 11/2024/CGAA4/SGA1/SG/CADE (SEI 1341831) à presente decisão, inclusive como sua motivação. Pelos fundamentos apontados na Nota Técnica citada, decido pelo deferimento precário do pedido de intervenção como terceiro interessado formulado por TAM Linhas Aéreas, concedendo-lhe 15 (quinze) dias para manifestação complementar, nos termos do §2° do art. 118 do Regimento Interno do Cade.

CMA

RedBird IMI / Telegraph Media Group merger inquiry

• Thermo Fisher Scientific / Olink merger inquiryThe CMA is investigating the anticipated acquisition by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. of Olink Holding AB.
  • Updated: 2 February 2024

Autorité de la Concurrence

Décision 24-DCC-11 du 05 février 2024

relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif des sociétés Centre auto SBH, Turbe car rental et Turbe car rental II par la société Socipar

Publication du sens de la décision le : 05 février 2024 |

Secteurs :

• DISTRIBUTION

Imprimer la page

• Partager sur Twitter (nouvelle fenêtre)
• Partager sur LinkedIn (nouvelle fenêtre)

Présentation de la décision

Informations sur la décision

Recours et Pourvois

Cette décision est susceptible de faire l’objet d’un recours.

DIÁRIO OFICIAL DA UNIÃOPublicado em: 02/02/2024 | Edição: 24 | Seção: 1 | Página: 42Órgão: Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública/Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica/Superintendência-GeralDESPACHOS...

Projeto garante atendimento a pessoas com deficiência no SUS sem marcação de consulta

Na Câmara, proposta precisa ser analisada por três comissões temáticasCompartilheVersão para impressão

 0 Comentários

02/02/2024 – 10:11  

Zeca Ribeiro / Câmara dos Deputados

O deputado Duarte Jr., autor a proposta

O Projeto de Lei 2417/23 assegura o atendimento de pessoa com deficiência na rede pública de saúde independentemente de senha, agendamento prévio ou limite diário de atendimentos. O texto está sendo analisado pela Câmara dos Deputados.

A proposta estabelece ainda que, caso necessite de atendimento clínico em mais de uma especialidade, as consultas serão realizadas em sequência a fim de evitar dificuldades de descolamento.

O descumprimento das medidas, de acordo com o projeto, será considerado infração disciplinar dos profissionais envolvidos, sujeitando-os às penas cabíveis.

“As pessoas com deficiência enfrentam dificuldades para se deslocarem até os serviços de saúde, o que acaba prejudicando o acesso a tratamentos e cuidados necessários”, observa o autor, deputado Duarte Jr (PSB-MA). “Além disso, muitas vezes não conseguem acessar o sistema de marcação de consultas em decorrência das barreiras de comunicação e tecnológicas existentes.”

Tramitação
O projeto será analisado, em caráter conclusivo, pelas comissões de Defesa dos Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência; de Saúde; e de Constituição e Justiça e de Cidadania.

Saiba mais sobre a tramitação de projetos de lei

Reportagem – Murilo Souza
Edição – Rachel Librelon

Fonte: Agência Câmara de Notícias

Projeto concede benefício previdenciário a mulheres resgatadas de trabalho escravo

Benefício deverá ser concedido até alcançarem o direito à aposentadoria; os deputados ainda precisam analisar a propostaCompartilheVersão para impressão

 0 Comentários

02/02/2024 – 09:15  

Zeca Ribeiro/Câmara dos Deputados

Reimont é o autor do projeto

O Projeto de Lei 5760/23 concede automaticamente o Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC) a todas as mulheres resgatadas em decorrência do trabalho escravo ou análogo à escravidão. Pela proposta que tramita na Câmara dos Deputados, essas mulheres deverão receber o benefício até alcançarem o direito à aposentadoria.

Atualmente, as mulheres resgatadas recebem o seguro-desemprego, que pode levar até 60 dias para ser concedido e por apenas cinco parcelas.

O projeto estabelece que a concessão dos benefícios seja feita sem prejuízo das investigações e dos devidos processos judiciais.

O autor do projeto, deputado Reimont (PT-RJ), afirma que medida é importante já que grande parte das mulheres resgatadas de trabalho escravo acaba retornando para a mesma condição. “Por falta de oportunidades de emprego e pela extrema vulnerabilidade em que vivem, decorrente da falta de renda, assim como da baixa escolaridade”, explica o parlamenar.

Tramitação
O projeto, que tramita em caráter conclusivo, será analisado pelas comissões de Defesa dos Direitos da Mulher;  de Previdência, Assistência Social, Infância, Adolescência e Família; de Finanças e Tributação; e de Constituição e Justiça e de Cidadania.

• Saiba mais sobre a tramitação de projetos de lei

Reportagem – Luiz Gustavo Xavier
Edição – Rodrigo Bittar

Fonte: Agência Câmara de Notícias

Projeto busca agilizar investigação de crime contra a vida de criança e adolescente

CompartilheVersão para impressão

 0 Comentários

01/02/2024 – 16:33  

O Projeto de Lei 6234/23, do Poder Executivo, estabelece medidas para agilizar a investigação de crimes contra a vida de crianças e adolescentes. Pelo texto, inquéritos policiais de homicídio, feminicídio, roubo seguido de morte e outros crimes relacionados deverão ter identificada a tramitação diferenciada com a expressão “Prioridade – Vítima criança ou adolescente”.

A proposta garante à vítima, a partir de seu representante legal (pais ou responsáveis), e a familiares acesso à documentação para acompanhar o trabalho policial. Familiares da vítima, mesmo fora do processo, poderão ser ouvidos e apresentar informações e provas. Em todos os momentos do processo a criança ou o adolescente ou familiares deverão ser acompanhados de advogado ou defensor público.

Depositphotos

Inquéritos deverão conter a expressão “Prioridade – Vítima criança ou adolescente”

A justificativa, assinada pelo agora ex-ministro da Justiça Flávio Dino, cita que o tempo médio de tramitação de inquérito em crimes letais contra crianças e adolescentes no Rio de Janeiro é de 7 anos e 5 meses. “O longo tempo de tramitação da investigação e do julgamento propiciam um quadro sistêmico de violação de direitos, há vitimização secundária da criança e de seus familiares pela ineficiência dos mecanismos de responsabilização”, afirma Dino.

O Brasil registrou 3.717 mortes violentas intencionais de crianças e adolescentes, entre homicídios, feminicídios e latrocínio, segundo dados de 2019 a 2021 do Anuário Brasileiro da Segurança Pública.

O projeto insere as novas regras na Lei 13.431/17, que estabelece o sistema de garantias de direitos da criança e do adolescente vítima ou testemunha de violência, e na Política Nacional de Segurança Pública e Defesa Social (Lei 13.675/18).

Saiba mais sobre a tramitação de projetos de lei

Reportagem – Tiago Miranda
Edição – Pierre Triboli

Fonte: Agência Câmara de Notícias

Senado analisa projeto para evitar invasão de competência legislativa 

Da Agência Senado | 02/02/2024, 11h03

Soraya Thronicke, autora da proposta, criticou o “ativismo judicial” que gera normas para suprir ausência de legislação
Jefferson Rudy/Agência Senado

Proposições legislativas

• PDL 347/2023

A preservação da competência legislativa do Congresso pode ser regulamentada em lei. É o que estabelece o projeto de Decreto Legislativo (PDL) 347/2023, da senadora Soraya Thronicke (Podemos-MS), que aguarda a escolha de um relator na Comissão de Constituição e Justiça (CCJ). Ao apresentar o projeto, ela citou o que chamou de “ativismo judicial”, quando o Poder Judiciário adota normas para suprir a ausência de legislação que deveria ser feita pelo Congresso.

No texto, a senadora elenca todos os casos que são de competência legislativa exclusiva do Congresso Nacional trazidos na Constituição, como elaborar emendas à Constituição e de leis e dispor sobre assuntos de competência exclusiva do Congresso Nacional, como os tratados internacionais e o julgamento de contas anuais do presidente da República. Também traz os temas de competência privativa de cada uma das Casas, como autorizar a instauração de processo contra o presidente da República, no caso da Câmara, e processar e julgar o presidente e outras autoridades por crime de responsabilidade, no caso do Senado.

O projeto também enumera as atribuições normativas dos outros Poderes e dos órgãos independentes: tribunais do Poder Judiciário, Ministério Público da União (MPU), Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) e Defensoria Pública da União (DPU). O rol é usado posteriormente, no texto, para prever que o exercício dessas atribuições ofenderá a competência legislativa do Congresso Nacional ou de suas Casas quando forem emitidas decisões ou atos fora dessas hipóteses previstas no projeto.

Invasão

Como exemplo da extrapolação de competência, a senadora citou decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) sobre a criminalização da homofobia, em 2019, e, mais recentemente, sobre o aborto realizado até o terceiro mês da gestação. Para a senadora, independentemente do mérito das questões, é preciso discutir a competência para inovar no Direito, que é função do Parlamento e não de outros Poderes.

“A eventual decisão do Parlamento de (ainda) não legislar, de levar mais tempo debatendo e maturando a decisão de editar uma lei, deve ser respeitada pelos demais Poderes. É lição básica da ciência política que, no processo legislativo, a ‘não decisão’ é também uma decisão. A lei na democracia atual, complexa e pluralista, não é meramente um texto gramatical elaborado por técnicos”, justificou a senadora, ao afirmar que certas questões necessitam de tempo e aprofundamento para a elaboração de leis.

Para Soraya Thronicke, há uma ideia no imaginário popular de que o Congresso é melhor se produzir mais leis, mas ela diz considerar que, além de produzir as leis necessárias, o Legislativo também deve barrar as iniciativas que entender inadequadas após o debate.

“O Estado de direito não pode existir se as leis puderem ser produzidas, modificadas ou revogadas por órgão diverso daquele a quem a Constituição federal atribuiu a função de legislar e, ainda por cima, sem o prévio conhecimento dos cidadãos e do próprio órgão legislador”, defendeu.

Outras hipóteses

A competência legislativa do Congresso ou das suas Casas, de acordo com o texto, também será ferida quando qualquer poder ou órgão independente invadir ou desrespeitar, direta ou indiretamente, essa competência, mesmo que com a justificativa de exercer suas atribuições constitucionais, legais, judiciais ou administrativas.

Outras hipóteses previstas no texto são atos ou decisões que firam a independência do Congresso ou de suas Casas, que ofendam a harmonia entre os outros Poderes ou órgãos independentes e o Congresso ou suas Casas; que usurpem suas funções, que desrespeite os princípios constitucionais como o da reserva legal; que criem direito que o Congresso Nacional ou suas Casas decidiram ainda não criar; ou que representem interpretação contradição com o texto da Constituição do de lei.

Para resolver dúvidas sobre o tema, o texto prevê que, caberá consulta às comissões de Constituição e Justiça da Câmara e do Senado ou a uma comissão mista do Congresso especialmente criada para esse fim.

Providências

O texto elenca providências que poderão ser tomadas pelo presidente do Congresso ou da Casa que tiver a competência invadida. Entre elas está a determinação de um prazo para que o Poder ou órgão independente responsável adote as medidas cabíveis para a correção da inconstitucionalidade ou ilegalidade.

Caso não atendido o prazo, o Congresso ou as Casas poderão sustar, por decreto legislativo, o ato ou decisão que invadiu sua competência. Outra providência prevista é representar ao Poder ou órgão competente sobre as irregularidades ou abusos apurados, para a promoção da responsabilidade civil, penal e administrativa dos infratores.

Para a senadora, é preciso que o Congresso assuma seu papel de órgão de controle de atos praticados pelos demais Poderes, já que essa possibilidade é prevista implicitamente na Constituição, faltando apenas ser explicitada em norma legal. 

Fonte: Agência Senado

ANTAQ avança no projeto de concessão de área do Porto de Itajaí/SCDiretoria Colegiada aprovou a...