|
|
|
|
European Merger Control: Do the Checks and Balances Need to be Re-Set? - Chapter 8 - International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2001
Pages:
ISBN:
Published On:
Updated On:
6968
DwnLdItem
PDF Chapter
Have a question? Email us about this product!
Available Format
|
Additional Information |
International Antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2001 - Hardcover International antitrust Law & Policy: Fordham Corporate Law 2001 - PDF ____________________________________________________________________________________ Preview Page I. INTRODUCTION
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on governEUROPEAN
MERGER CONTROL 137
ment would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
administered by men over men, the great difficulties lies in this: you
must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the
next place oblige it to control itself. (James Madison, Publius, The
Federalist, No 5, February 8, 1788).
So wrote James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the United States
of America to the people of the State of New York over two hundred years
ago. The notion of checks and balances between the legislative, executive and
judicial arms of government has, of course, a long history stretching back to
classical Roman and Greek times and continuing through Renaissance times
to the British, French and American philosophers of the eighteenth century.
The European Merger Control Regulation,1 it is often claimed, also
depends on a set of checks and balances. This paper examines how these
have worked in practice and considers whether they need to be reset.
Providing as it does a supra-national merger control regime for originally
12 Member States,2 currently 15,3 and soon to be 20 to 30 Member States,4 the
Merger Regulation is in many respects unique in both its aims and its
operation.
Last year, the Merger Regulation celebrated its tenth anniversary, with a
two-day conference in, appropriately, Brussels. There was much to celebrate
and praise as in many ways the Merger Regulation has proved entirely wrong
to those sceptics who at its birth could not believe that it could ever become
an effective instrument of regulation, let alone do so within the constraints of
a fixed timetable. But as well as the celebrations and the praise, there were
also ‘‘some words of cajoling and some gentle criticism’’ as Commissioner
Monti has put it.5
These words have been repeated over the past year. Indeed, the spotlight
has hardly ever been off the Merger Regulation, as the European Commission
(Commission) has made decisions about one complex and high profile
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels and London. The authors wish to
thank a number of their colleagues for their contributions to this paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
