scholarly journals Merger Control Procedures and Institutions: A Comparison of the EU and US Practice

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Kovacic ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis ◽  
Damien J. Neven
Keyword(s):  
Merger Control ◽  
Control Procedures ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals A Transatlantic Secular Divide? The Representation of Religion in EU and US Foreign Policy

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jenichen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIt is a common—often stereotypical—presumption that Europe is secular and America religious. Differences in international religious freedom and religious engagement policies on both sides of the Atlantic seem to confirm this “cliché.” This article argues that to understand why it has been easier for American supporters to institutionalize these policies than for advocates in the EU, it is important to consider the discursive structures of EU and US foreign policies, which enable and constrain political language and behavior. Based on the analysis of foreign policy documents, produced by the EU and the United States in their relationship with six religiously diverse African and Asian states, the article compares how both international actors represent religion in their foreign affairs. The analysis reveals similarities in the relatively low importance that they attribute to religion and major differences in how they represent the contribution of religion to creating and solving problems in other states. In sum, the foreign policies of both international actors are based on a secular discursive structure, but that of the United States is much more accommodative toward religion, including Islam, than that of the EU.

scholarly journals Aflatoxin B1 risk management in Parmigiano Reggiano dairy cow feed

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgia Canestrari ◽  
Barbara Ricci ◽  
Valentina Pizzamiglio ◽  
Alberto Biancardi ◽  
Pierluigi Piazza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Aflatoxin B1 ◽  
Dairy Cow ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Aflatoxin Contamination ◽  
Quality Control Program ◽  
Control Procedures ◽  
Feed Samples ◽  
Parmigiano Reggiano ◽  
The Eu

This study investigated aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) contamination in dairy cow feed and the risk management of AFB1 content in concentrates undertaken by feed industries in the Parmigiano Reggiano area. Data on aflatoxin contamination risk management applied in 29 feed industries were collected and the AFB1 content of 70 feed samples was analyzed. Data were collected within the framework of a quality control program promoted by the Parmigiano Reggiano Consortium in 2013 and 2014. Audit results showed that the control procedures to prevent AFB1 contamination mainly focused on maize and its by-products. AFB1 concentration resulted lower than 5 ppb (legal EU limit) in all samples; in one out of 70 samples, AFB1 content was 3.8 ppb and in all the other samples it was lower than 3 ppb. Results showed that AFB1 risk management applied by Italian feed industries effectively monitors AFB1 levels in feed below the EU legal limit.

EU merger review of the acquisition of non-controlling minority shareholdings: where to now?

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Frank Montag ◽  
Mary Wilks
Keyword(s):  
White Paper ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Eu Merger Control ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
One Year ◽  
Minority Shareholdings ◽  
Minority Interests ◽  
Policy Proposals ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
The Eu

AbstractOn 9 July 2014, the European Commission (the Commission) published its White Paper “Towards more effective EU merger control”, which reviewed the operation of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) ten years after the introduction of the substantive test of “significant impediment to substantial competition” (SIEC) and proposed certain specific improvements, including the review of non-controlling minority interests under the EUMR. The 2014 White Paper followed approximately one year of consultation with Member States and interested parties, and was accompanied by a Staff Working Document, which analyses in more detail the considerations underlying the policy proposals in the 2014 White Paper, and an Impact Assessment, which analyses the potential benefits and costs of the various policy options considered.Less than six months after the consultation on the 2014 White Paper closed, Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager indicated that the Commission is reconsidering its proposals to allow it to review the acquisition of non-controlling minority shareholdings under the EUMR. This decision has been welcomed by many in the business and legal community as the “targeted transparency system” proposed by the Commission had raised a number of concerns regarding proportionality, legal certainty, cost and administrative burden.Whilst we await the Commission’s next move, this article considers whether non-controlling minority shareholdings should be subject to EU merger control and the extent to which the Commission’s originally envisaged system adequately dealt with the issues it sought to address. This article also proposes a number of principles that the authors suggest should be taken into account when designing a balanced system of merger review for acquisitions of non-controlling minority shareholdings in which the burden of the additional review is proportionate to the goals pursued.

scholarly journals Local nexus in merger control regimes

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Daniela Lukáčová
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
The State ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Market Shares ◽  
Economic Size ◽  
The Eu

Merger control is one of the competition law tools. While competition authorities in EU act primarily on the basis of national legislation, European Commission controls mergers with EU dimension. The jurisdictional tests relate only to the economic size of the parties and do not depend on the market shares of the parties or substantive impact of the transaction, or on whether the concentration will have any effects within the state. Globalization increases the number of multijurisdictional mergers that are subject to control of several competition authorities within or outside the EU. Differences in merger control proceedings in such cases with regard to the timeframe, or the result of the proceeding, could have a negative impact on the economy in another country. Parties to the concentration could decide to neglect the merger notification due to the timeframe, or complications connected with approving of multijurisdictional merger in other countries with jurisdiction. Therefore, the national authorities’ effort to set in their legislation turnover criteria with local nexus could help to control concentrations with potential effect on competition in their country.

scholarly journals Political Framework of Green New Deal: A comparative analysis of the EU and US proposals

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-246
Author(s):  
Taedong Lee ◽  
Myungsung Kim ◽  
Natalie Chifamba
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Eu And Us ◽  
The Eu
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document