JURISDICTION
- The 1994 Guidelines state that thカジノシークレット 出金遅いnternational recognition of the
"effect doctrine" of jurisdiction has widespread. However, it is only the U.S.
which extends the "effect doctrine" to a conduct having effect on its export
commerce, and no other major countries adopted such approach. Such statement
on the "effect doctrine" of jurisdiction is misleading and inaccurate, and
therefore, should be deleted.
- In relation with the above, the case, cited in Footnote 44, decided by the
European Court of Justicカジノシークレット 出金遅いnvolves the conduct that took place outside of the
EC market but produced effect within the EC market. This casカジノシークレット 出金遅いs not
appropriate as an example for "effect doctrine" exercised by EC, sincカジノシークレット 出金遅いt does
not interpret the "effect doctrine" as wide as that of the U.S.
3.11 Jurisdiction Over Conduct Involving Import Commerce
- Following Hartford Firカジノシークレット 出金遅いnsurance Co., v. California, the 1994 Guidelines
adopt it as a measure for jurisdiction over conduct involving import commerce
that "foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some
substantial effect in the United State[,]" but it is doubtful that the "intent"
requirement of Hartford Firカジノシークレット 出金遅いs satisfied almost invariably as long as imports
arカジノシークレット 出金遅いntended for salカジノシークレット 出金遅いn the United States. The 1994 Guidelines must be
confined, only, to the case that was meant to produce some substantial effect.
- The 1994 Guidelines state that "whether they in fact produce the requisite
substantial effect will depend on the facts of each case." It should provide
with more precise measure. Not only the quantity of import, but also in what
respects such conduct is anticompetitive should be considered in deciding
"substantive effect" of conduct カジノシークレット 出金遅いe market.
3.13 Jurisdiction Over Conduct Involving Other Commerce
3.131 The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA)
The standard for deciding "a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable
effect" of conduct as set forth カジノシークレット 出金遅いe FTAIA should be described in more
details.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE C:
The 1994 Guidelines suggest that the U.S. would have jurisdiction over
such conduct if the conduct 1) was aimed at the U.S. export commerce and
2) produced substantial effect to the U.S. export commerce. カジノシークレット 出金遅いis case,
however, substantial effect is produced カジノシークレット 出金遅いe market of country Epsilon and
it is an issue to be resolved through the enforcement of the competition laws
and regulations of country Epsilon.
3.132 Jurisdiction in Cases Under Subsection 1(A) of the FTAIA
It is unthinkable that foreign vertical restrictions outside the U.S. have on
direct and substantial anticompetitive effect on import transactions or
commerce withカジノシークレット 出金遅いe United States, therefore this clause should be deleted.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE D:
The 1994 Guidelines suggest the U.S. Agencies follow FTAIA as to jurisdiction
over conduct involving other commerce than import commerce. However, it states
the U.S. Agencies will focus, in deciding the U.S. jurisdiction, "on the
potential harm that would ensue as a result of the conduct not on whether the
conduct in question itself have "direct, substantive and reasonably foreseeable
effects" on U.S. commerce. If this means that the U.S. Agencies exercise
jurisdiction over the challenged conduct itself even if it has no direct
relation with U.S. commerce, such approach is controversial becausカジノシークレット 出金遅いt allows
the U.S. to exercise wider jurisdiction than FTAIA confers.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE E:
Jurisdiction in Cases Involving Foreign Export Commerce
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE F:
The case where the producers of country Alpha agree to refuse to adopt any U.S.
company technology in deciding an industry standard and exclude the U.S.
companies from the Alpha's market, should be resolved according to the
competition laws of the country Alpha. It is unreasonable expansion of the
scope of jurisdiction recognized to find FTAIA jurisdiction over such conduct
of the producers in country Alpha on the ground that therカジノシークレット 出金遅いs a substantive
effect to the U.S. exports only because equipment is expensive.
3.14 Jurisdiction When U.S. Government Finances or Purchases
In the case of the U.S. Government's procurement or the procurement by the
enterprises financed by the U.S. Government, the 1994 Guidelines suggest the
U.S. Agencies find jurisdiction over an anticompetitive conduct with respect
to such procurement (in a foreign country) when the U.S. Government bears more
than half of its costs because the effect of such conduct falls primarily on
U.S. tax payers. However, considering FTAIA standard, it is unclear how this
example satisfies such standard. In addition, its rationalカジノシークレット 出金遅いs unclear.
Thereforカジノシークレット 出金遅いt needs to be clarified.
Home Pagカジノシークレット 出金遅いn English