guia prÃ¡tico do cade - Conselho Administrativo de Defesa EconÃ´mica

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(iii) the value charged corresponds to the cost of physical and administrativeoperations necessary for the delivery of containers not covered by the box rate.In summary, port terminal operators alleged that charges for THC2 were a legitimatecompetitive conduct, resulting from the natural dynamics of the marketand even if the non-integrated terminals were excluded, this would not be due toan anticompetitive conduct but to a new market configuration that would be thatof vertically integrated companies.CADE concluded that none of these reasons was strong enough to justify thepractice adopted because none of the studies, reports or simulations was able toprove that the Defendant’s claims were justifiable, among other reasons.The case was understood as a practice to raise rival companies’ costs by meansof vertical integration of port terminals. FCCR (Fees Charged for Container Release)has the effect of creating a limit inferior to that of prices practiced by theCustoms Facilities, which are not integrated vertically thus limiting competitionin the market. Without maintaining proportion with the effective costs of containermovements, the FCCR raises the costs of all the industries that import rawmaterials, reducing the consumers’ welfare and harming competition in Brazilianindustry.DecisionThus, on April 27, 2005, CADE’s Board condemned the Represented for violationof the economic order, and established: (i) the immediate cessation of chargingthe release of containers from customs facilities; (ii) the payment of a fine of1% (one percent) of their gross sales in the year before the process was filed andin the case of Usiminas, which explores countless activities not related to the portactivity, the fine will be incurred on gross sales relating only to the port activities atthe terminal in question; (iii) the publication of the contents of the decision in halfa page of a newspaper with large national circulation for two consecutive days intwo consecutive weeks; in addition to other determinations.It was further ruled that a copy of the decision should be submitted to theAgência Nacional de Transportes Aquaviários – ANTAQ (National Water TransportAgency), to the Secretariat for Economic Law within the Ministry of Justice– SDE/MJ and the Secretariat for Economic Monitoring of the Ministry of Finance– SEAE/MF.178
Post-DecisionThe Represented filed various legal actions to challenge CADE’s decision. In thecase of some of the legal actions, preliminary orders have been granted suspendingall the effects of the administrative decision upon a legal deposit in the value of thepenalties applied (art. 65 of Law No 8.884/94). At the close of this practical guide,the actions filed were pending judicial sentences.4. CASE: MICROSOFT / TBAAdministrative Proceeding nº 08012.008024/1998-49Representative: SDE “ex ofício” (Secretariat for Economic Law)Represented: TBA Informática Ltda e Microsoft Informática Ltda.Case DescriptionAdministrative Proceeding filed by the Secretariat for Economic Law ex offíciobased on an article published in the newspaper Jornal O Globo on October 8, 1998,as well as a petition filed by IOS – Informática Organização e Sistemas Ltda. withthe Secretariat for Economic Law in relation to Microsoft Informática Ltda andTBA Informática Ltda.In relation to Microsoft, the following conducts were investigated:a) divide the market of distribution and resale of computer science products;b) limit or impede access, operation and the development of a competing companyor purchaser in the market of distribution and development of a competingcompany or purchaser in the market of distribution and resale of information technologyproducts ;c) previously fix prices and adjust advantages for public or administrative bids;d) hamper or break the continuity or development of trade relations as a resultof refusal from the other party in complying with unjustifiable or anti-competitiveclauses and conditions; ande) impose excessive prices without reason.In relation to TBA, the following conducts were imputed:a) limit or impede access, operation and the development of a competing com-CADE PRACTICAL GUIDE179
Page 2:
CONSELHO ADMINISTRATIVODE DEFESA EC
Page 5:
ÍNDICEINTRODUÇÃOCatalog Record71
Page 10 and 11:
3. Por que o monopólio pode ser pr
Page 12 and 13:
por parte de empresas ou de seus ad
Page 14 and 15:
executar a política nacional de pr
Page 16 and 17:
Coordenação-Geral de Comunicaçã
Page 18 and 19:
Cada um dos membros do Plenário te
Page 20 and 21:
15. A que corresponde o papel educa
Page 23 and 24:
Conceitos jurídico-econômicosenvo
Page 25 and 26:
5. Quando a empresa tem participaç
Page 27 and 28:
Conceitos legais legais envolvidos
Page 29 and 30:
de uma denúncia ou até mesmo por
Page 31 and 32:
Apresentação e análise e anális
Page 33 and 34:
Análise de condutas de condutas le
Page 35 and 36:
apuração dos fatos, sendo este ex
Page 37 and 38:
um ilícito per se, devendo ser ava
Page 39:
16. O que é discriminação de pre
Page 42 and 43:
plo poder de disseminação de info
Page 45 and 46:
CASOS PRÁTICOSAtos de concentraç
Page 47 and 48:
levantar preocupações do CADE em
Page 49 and 50:
exclusividade aos pontos de venda (
Page 51 and 52:
2. CASO NESTLÉ / GAROTOAto de Conc
Page 53 and 54:
ESTRUTURA DE OFERTA NO MERCADO DE C
Page 55 and 56:
decisão do CADE, tendo conseguido
Page 57 and 58:
Estrada de Ferro Vitória Minas (EF
Page 59 and 60:
Adicionalmente a estas determinaç
Page 61 and 62:
no mercado de cristais de insulina
Page 63 and 64:
PROCESSOS ADMINISTRATIVOS1. CASO DO
Page 65 and 66:
O pós-decisãoAs representadas aju
Page 67 and 68:
de programas como o SISCO 11 e o PA
Page 69 and 70:
sentença judicial.Relativamente à
Page 71 and 72:
não cobertos pela “box rate” 1
Page 73 and 74:
Em relação à Microsoft, foram as
Page 75 and 76:
Microsoft, ao criar uma posição e
Page 77 and 78:
Descrição do casoEm agosto de 199
Page 79 and 80:
LEI DE DEFESA DA CONCORRÊNCIALei n
Page 81 and 82:
sem prejuízo de suas atribuições
Page 83 and 84:
Público Federal;XV - determinar à
Page 85 and 86:
VI - zelar pelo cumprimento desta l
Page 87 and 88:
XIV - desenvolver estudos e pesquis
Page 89 and 90:
VII - exigir ou conceder exclusivid
Page 91 and 92:
III - No caso das demais pessoas f
Page 93 and 94:
CAPÍTULO IVDA PRESCRIÇÃOArtigo 2
Page 95 and 96:
Artigo 35. Decorrido o prazo de apr
Page 97 and 98:
§ 7º A empresa ou pessoa física
Page 99 and 100:
com antecedência mínima de cinco
Page 101 and 102:
não poderá ser inferior ao mínim
Page 103 and 104:
§ 9º Se os atos especificados nes
Page 105 and 106:
Artigo 62. Na execução que tenha
Page 107 and 108:
§ 1º Se, apesar das providências
Page 109 and 110:
Artigo 85. O inciso VII do art. 4º
Page 111 and 112:
Notas1 Nota: Parágrafo único orig
Page 113 and 114:
“Parágrafo único. Não justific
Page 115 and 116:
estabelecido; b) valor da multa di
Page 117 and 118:
dente da República submeterá à a
Page 119:
PARA SABER MAISCADEConselho Adminis
Page 123 and 124:
PRACTICAL GUIDEThe Importance of Co
Page 125:
5. How is competition dealt with by
Page 128 and 129: ute towards the adoption of procedu
Page 130 and 131: opinions about the effects of opera
Page 132 and 133: terations, which appear as merger r
Page 134 and 135: 18. What is the role of the Federal
Page 136 and 137: 3. When does a dominant position oc
Page 139 and 140: LegalLegal ConceptsConceptsInvolved
Page 141 and 142: If SDE concludes, during the prelim
Page 143 and 144: SubmittingSubmitting andandAnalyzin
Page 145 and 146: Analysis of Conducts Harmful toComp
Page 147 and 148: the edition of Law Nº 10.149 of De
Page 149 and 150: 13. What are exclusivity agreements
Page 151 and 152: PromotingPromoting the Defensethe D
Page 153: 5. Does the student receive any fin
Page 156 and 157: TABLE 1AMBEV - DISTRIBUTION OF ORDI
Page 158 and 159: Therefore, the high market concentr
Page 160 and 161: ucts was lower than that of the gen
Page 162 and 163: SUPPLY STRUCTURE IN THE MARKET OF C
Page 164 and 165: 3. VALE DO RIO DOCE CASEMerger Revi
Page 166 and 167: Problems FoundWith the operations,
Page 168 and 169: 4. INSULIN CASEMerger Review nº 08
Page 170 and 171: DecisionThe operation was approved
Page 172 and 173: entry barriers, virtually identical
Page 174 and 175: Relevant Market Affected by the Pra
Page 176 and 177: ommended public agencies not to acc
Page 180 and 181: pany in the market of distribution
Page 182 and 183: cluded that the conduct of Microsof
Page 184 and 185: increase tariffs. Among other penal
Page 186 and 187: TITLE IITHE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
Page 188 and 189: with this Law;XI - commission the c
Page 190 and 191: Paragraph 3. In the event of absenc
Page 192 and 193: CHAPTER IIVIOLATIONSArticle 20. Sha
Page 194 and 195: 194CHAPTER IIIPENALTIESArticle 23.
Page 196 and 197: CHAPTER VCAUSE OF ACTIONArticle 29.
Page 198 and 199: 198ded for in the opening paragraph
Page 200 and 201: its final arguments within five day
Page 202 and 203: III - The fixing of the value of th
Page 204 and 205: the Securities Commission - CVM and
Page 206 and 207: Article 67. Daily fines on an ongoi
Page 208 and 209: Article 81-A. The Administrative Co
Page 211 and 212: Notes1 Note: Sole Paragraph renumbe
Page 213 and 214: 15 Note: Transcription of the passa
Page 215 and 216: Unit), or a new reference unit. Bac
Page 217 and 218: It is apparent that the innovations
Page 219: FURTHER INFORMATIONhttp://www.CADE.
Page 222 and 223: COLEÇÃO CIEEColeção CIEE-01 (es
Page 224 and 225: COLEÇÃO CIEEColeção CIEE-69 (es
Page 226 and 227: CONSELHO DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO(Mandato
Page 228:
Editado numa parceria CIEE/CADE, o
show all

guia prÃ¡tico do cade - Conselho Administrativo de Defesa EconÃ´mica

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?