The Comparison of the US and EU Agricultural Antitrust Exemptions

M. M. Csirszki
{"title":"The Comparison of the US and EU Agricultural Antitrust Exemptions","authors":"M. M. Csirszki","doi":"10.7172/1689-9024.yars.2022.15.25.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article aims to compare the sectoral antitrust exemption for agriculture that exists in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). The roots for the privileged position of agriculture under antitrust laws date back to 1914. Section 6 of the Clayton Act was the first US law which exempted certain cooperatives. In 1922, the protection was extended to a broader range of agricultural entities by the Capper-Volstead Act. These two acts have since then determined the scope and extent of the US exemption but have evolved through judiciary interpretation. The EU has had a similar exemption for agriculture since the beginnings of European integration. After presenting briefly the likely explanations for the privileged treatment of this sector under antitrust, the article aims to analyse the regulations in force in order to explore their similarities and differences. The analysis also seeks to answer the question of whether the ‘accusation’ that EU competition law – in contrast with the US antitrust regime – is not purely based on efficiency considerations can also be extended to the agricultural sector’s privileged treatment. In the end, the rules in force of the two jurisdictions are compared and conclusions drawn.","PeriodicalId":36276,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7172/1689-9024.yars.2022.15.25.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article aims to compare the sectoral antitrust exemption for agriculture that exists in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). The roots for the privileged position of agriculture under antitrust laws date back to 1914. Section 6 of the Clayton Act was the first US law which exempted certain cooperatives. In 1922, the protection was extended to a broader range of agricultural entities by the Capper-Volstead Act. These two acts have since then determined the scope and extent of the US exemption but have evolved through judiciary interpretation. The EU has had a similar exemption for agriculture since the beginnings of European integration. After presenting briefly the likely explanations for the privileged treatment of this sector under antitrust, the article aims to analyse the regulations in force in order to explore their similarities and differences. The analysis also seeks to answer the question of whether the ‘accusation’ that EU competition law – in contrast with the US antitrust regime – is not purely based on efficiency considerations can also be extended to the agricultural sector’s privileged treatment. In the end, the rules in force of the two jurisdictions are compared and conclusions drawn.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国与欧盟农业反垄断豁免比较
本文旨在比较美国和欧盟对农业的部门反垄断豁免。农业在反垄断法下享有特权地位的根源可以追溯到1914年。克莱顿法案第6条是美国第一部豁免某些合作社的法律。1922年,《卡珀-沃尔斯特德法案》将保护范围扩大到更广泛的农业实体。此后,这两项法案决定了美国豁免的范围和程度,但随着司法解释的发展而演变。自欧洲一体化开始以来,欧盟对农业也有类似的豁免。在简要介绍了该行业在反垄断法下享有特权待遇的可能解释后,本文旨在分析现行法规,以探讨其异同。该分析还试图回答这样一个问题,即与美国反垄断制度相比,欧盟竞争法并非纯粹基于效率考虑的“指控”是否也可以扩展到农业部门的特权待遇。最后,对两个司法管辖区的现行规则进行了比较,得出结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Section 19a GWB as the German ‘Lex GAFA’ – lighthouse project or superfluous national solo run? The Digital Markets Act between the EU Economic Constitutionalism and the EU Competition Policy Gateways to the Internet Ecosystem – Enabling and Discovery Tools in the Age of Global Online Platforms The Housekeeping of the Court of Justice: The ne bis in idem Principle and the Territorial Scope of NCA Decisions. Case Comment to the Nordzucker Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 2022, Case C-151/20 Competition law enforcement in Ukraine: challenges from on-line giants
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1