The Legal 500

Neli Nedkova and Dessislava Iordanova - Wolf Theiss

In 2010 the activity of the Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition (the Commission) showed a trend of increasing focus on compliance shifting slightly from the antitrust area. Proceedings that have started and the most recent decisions show that this trend is likely to continue in 2011.

In July 2011, the Slovak Competition Authority (“SCA”) launched a public consultation concerning changes in the Slovak merger control regime. The law amending the merger regime was adopted on 19 October 2011 and will be in force as of 1 January 2012.

Serbia
SERBIA POWERS UP: NEW ENERGY ACT ADOPTED
Hungary
THE NEW HUNGARIAN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT
Poland
POTENTIAL PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WITH TRANSFERRING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS IN CASE OF ACQUISITIONS AND RESTRUCTURINGS

New Regulations Governing Fining and Leniency Policy Bring Serbia’s Competition Law Regime Closer to EU Standards

Multi-digit Euro fines for anti-competitive behaviour and continued press coverage of bribes have moved compliance programmes ever more into the focus of attention. They shall help prevent impermissible behaviour, but how to organise a compliance pro-gramme?

The amendments to the Prospectus Directive aim to address deficiencies in the existing le-gal framework relating to securities prospectuses with a view of improving legal clarity and reducing burdens for issuers and intermediaries, while at the same time enhancing investor protection.

On 25 June 2010, the United NationsCommission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL) adopted its revised arbitrationrules (the UNCITRAL Rules).1 The newrules replace the successful UNCITRALArbitration Rules adopted in 1976 (the1976 Rules).2 The revision was not intendedto change the structure, the spirit or thedrafting style of the 1976 Rules, and shouldmaintain the flexibility that contributed totheir success in the past.3 

THE WAR WAGED BY INTELLECTUALproperty (IP) rights holders in the EU againstinfringement by shipments of goods hasrecently become more intense. These rightsmainly relate to trade marks, design andcopyright, and IP rights holders pursue theirclaims through the customs authoritiesof EU member states.  

AFTER ADVISING A CLIENT ON MERGING Agroup of companies across a number ofcountries, we realised there was a need fora fi rm-wide eff ort to research and compilea guide on how to successfully carry outmulti-jurisdictional mergers. The projectfocused on the 12 countries in central,eastern and south-eastern Europe whereWolf Theiss has offi ces. The eff ort resultedin the publication last autumn of Cross-Border Mergers in CEE/SEE – Practioner’sGuide (LexisNexis 2009). 

LAST YEAR SAW AN INCREASE IN LEGISLATIVEactivities concerning competition law inseveral central and eastern European (CEE)and south-east European (SEE) countries.The non-EU member countries in the regioncontinue to harmonise their competitionlaw regimes with international standardsapplicable in most jurisdictions in the EU.This should facilitate the competition lawassessment for undertakings active innumerous jurisdictions across Europe. 

On April 14, 2010 the Austrian Cartel Court released a decision1 imposing an overall fine of EUR 1.52 million on four companies participating in a cartel in the printing chemical sector. The investigation of the cartel by the Austrian Federal Competition Authority was triggered by a leniency application. As in other jurisdictions, if all requirements are fulfilled no fine will be imposed on the first leniency applicant for his cooperation. However, in this particular case, the first leniency applicant negligently failed to fulfil its obligation of full cooperation. Consequently, the Austrian Federal Competition Authority requested the Austrian Cartel Court to impose a fine on the first leniency applicant.