•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This article discuss about Article 27 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 on the Restriction of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Practices (“Competition Law”). One may wonder the rigorousness to the application of Article 27 which arguably could ban any merger which meets market test without conducting any competitive assessment. For this, the law has been presumed that the acquisition or controlling of large market share from merger is per se illegality. Further, the effects of Article 27 would be discussed in this paper. A merger review itself is not an easy task and tends to bring complex issues that one needs to be dealt with. Things get more complicated when one deals with the merger application in developing countries since there are various aspects that need to be taken account by the respective antitrust authority (including Indonesia) Obviously, every country needs to set up its competition law in accordance with its own economic characteristics and conditions. Many have argued as to point out the severe condition in market as a result of high concentration of competition. But more of them argued otherwise, as it could positively pushed on the market. This article would also include best practices from US and EU competition law practices regarding the issue at hand, as well as the relationship of merger control and practices in developing countries. The article offers suggestion with regard to the current approach to Article 27 of the Competition Law and from EU and US best practice which could be used for the benefit of Indonesia’s competition law especially to the application of Article 27.

References

Bibliography

Book

Bork, Robert (1978). The Antitrust Paradox. Cooter, Robert, and Thomas Ulen (2004). Law & Economics 4th ed., (Pearson Addison Wesley).

Graham, Cosmo and Fiona Smith (2004). Competition, Regulation and the New Economy (Oxford and Portland Oregon). Hovenkamp, Herbert (2005). Federal Antitrust Policy The Law of Competition and its Practices 3rd ed. (Thomson West). Hylton, Keith N (2003). Antitrust Law Economic Theory & Common Law Evolution 1st (Cambrige University Press). Jones, Alison and Brenda Sufrin (2008) EC Competition Law 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press) Malecki, Edward J. (1991). Technology and Economic Development 1st ed. (Longman Group UK Limited). Page, William H. Page and John E.Lopatka (2007). The Microsoft Case, Antitrust, High Technology and Consumer Welfare 1st ed., (University Chicago Press). Posner, Richard (2001). Antitrust Law 2nd ed., (Chicago Press). Article Ahlborn, Christian, et.al, (2001). Competition policy in the new market: is European competition law up to the challenge ECLR 156 - 167. Baker, Jonathan B, et.al, (2004-2005). Rountable discussion on unilateral effects analysis after Oracle 19 Antitrust 8-19. Dhanjee, Rajan, (1993). Mergers and developing countries – trends, effects and policies World Competition 5. Hoekman, Bernard (2003). Economic development, competition policy and the WTO, 8 April 2003. Kroes, Neelie (2005). Preliminary thoughts on policy review of article 82 29 Fordham Int’l L.J., 593 - 600. Landes, William M and Richard A. Posner, (1981). Market power in antitrust case 94 Harv. L.Rev 937 - 996. Mehta, Pradeep, (2002/03). Competition policy in developing countries: an asia pasific perspective (bulletin on Asia-Pacific Perspective 2002/03). Mueller, DC, (1982). A theory of conglomerate merger Quarterly Journal of Economics 643 - 659. Sastry, Bhaskar, (2005). Market structure and incentives for innovation (June 2005). Shepherd, George B, et.al, (2000). Sharper focus: market shares in the merger guidelines 45 Antitrust Bull 835 - 886. Silalahi, Pande Radja, Urgency of competition law. Stewart, Taimoon, et.al, (2007). Competition law in action experiences from developing countries (Canada’s International Development Research Centre, 2007). Turner, Donald F., (1965). Conglomerate merger and section 7 of the Clayton Act 78 Harv.L.R. 1313 - 1395. UNCTAD, (2004). Competition, competitiveness and development: lessons from developing countries (UNCTAD,).

UNCTAD, (2009) Voluntary peer review on competition law, Indonesia (UNCTAD). Indonesian Cases KPPU Case No. 03/KPPU-L-I/2000 on PT Indomarco Prismatama. KPPU Case No. 05/KPPU-L/2002 on Cineplex 21. KPPU Case No. 07/KPPU-L/2007 on Temasek (divesment in Indosat). EU Cases Case C-62/86, AKZO Chemie BV v Commission [1991] ECR I-3359. Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96P, Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA, Compagnie Maritime Belge SA and Dafra-Lines A/S v. Commission [2000] ECR I-1365. Case 85/76 Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG v. Commission [1979] ECR 46. Case No Comp/M.5529 Oracle/Sun Microsystems [2010] OJ C 91/7. US Cases Berkley Photo, Inc v Eastman Kodak Co. 603.F.2d.263 (2d Cir.1979). United States v Almunium Co of America (Alcoa) 148 F.2d.416, 424 (1995). United States v. American Can Co., 230 Fed.859, 903 (D.Md.1916), appeal, dismissed, 256 U.S 706, 41 S.Ct. 624 (1921). US v. Grinnel 384 U.S 563, 571 (1966). United States v. Oracle Corp, No. C 04-0807 (finding of fact, conclusion of law and order) (2004). United States v United Shoe Machinery Corp 110 F.Supp.295 (D.Mass.1953). Verizon Communication Inc v. Law Office of Curtis v Trinko, LLP, 540 US 398 (2004) Websites www.ftc.org www.intertic.org www.jftc.go.jp. www.kppu.go.id www.papers.ssrn.com www.tradingeconomics.com www.unctad.org www.unescap.org www.asx.com.au www.nasdaq.com

Download

Share

COinS