Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Table of cases
- Table of legislation
- Introduction to the Second Supplement
- Introduction to the First Supplement
- 1 Argentina
- 2 Armenia
- 3 Australia
- 4 Austria
- 5 Belgium
- 6 Brazil
- 7 Canada
- 8 Chile
- 9 China
- 10 Denmark
- 11 European Union
- 12 Germany
- 13 Greece
- 14 Iceland
- 15 Italy
- 16 Japan
- 17 Republic of Korea
- 18 Malta
- 19 Mexico
- 20 The Netherlands
- 21 New Zealand
- 22 Norway
- 23 Singapore
- 24 Spain
- 25 Switzerland
- 26 Taiwan
- 27 Ukraine
- 28 United Kingdom
- 29 United States of America
- Index
15 - Italy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Table of cases
- Table of legislation
- Introduction to the Second Supplement
- Introduction to the First Supplement
- 1 Argentina
- 2 Armenia
- 3 Australia
- 4 Austria
- 5 Belgium
- 6 Brazil
- 7 Canada
- 8 Chile
- 9 China
- 10 Denmark
- 11 European Union
- 12 Germany
- 13 Greece
- 14 Iceland
- 15 Italy
- 16 Japan
- 17 Republic of Korea
- 18 Malta
- 19 Mexico
- 20 The Netherlands
- 21 New Zealand
- 22 Norway
- 23 Singapore
- 24 Spain
- 25 Switzerland
- 26 Taiwan
- 27 Ukraine
- 28 United Kingdom
- 29 United States of America
- Index
Summary
Decision-making bodies and enforcement authority(ies)
Law No. 262 of 28 December 2005 abrogated Article 20(2), (3) and (6) of Law No. 287/1990 which attributed the power to enforce Italian competition law in cases affecting core banking activities to the Bank of Italy. As a result, the Antitrust Authority (“the Authority”) is now the exclusive enforcement body as far as all competition matters are concerned.
For lack of jurisdiction, the Bank of Italy has closed all its pending investigations and has dismantled its specialized Antitrust Unit.
Notification requirements and procedures
Mandatory or voluntary notification
Definition of “concentration” under Law No. 287/90
Acquisition of sole control. Under particular circumstances, sole control may be ascertained even in the absence of a formal participation in the capital of the controlled undertaking. This is shown by an interesting decision in which the Authority assessed that Tetra Pak International SA (“Tetra Pak”) had exercised de facto control over Italpack Srl (“Italpack”) for almost ten years, thus infringing a 1993 decision by which the Authority prohibited Tetra Pak's proposed acquisition of Italpack. The decision is noteworthy since the Authority reached such conclusion notwithstanding the fact that Eaglepack Italia, a third independent company, formally acquired Italpack in 1995.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Merger Control WorldwideSecond Supplement to the First Edition, pp. 67 - 72Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008