Abstract
Transactional resolutions in Switzerland are part of a dynamic field characterized by constant conflicts and compromises—a constant balancing act between authorities’ possible actions in accordance with administrative law, benefits in the areas of fact-finding, and the efficient handling of actual or potential proceedings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In force per 1 April 2004.
- 2.
B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 11 to Article 29 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 3.
In the case RPW 2009/3, pp. 196ff—“Electrical Installation Companies Bern,” the difference between the first applicant and the second applicant was only 75 min.
- 4.
S. Howald, Einvernehmliche Regelungen bei sanktionsbedrohten Verhaltensweisen im schweizerischen Kartellrecht, sic! 11/2012, p. 3; B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 70 to Article 29 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 5.
RPW 2007/2, p. 190 paras. 20 and 292—“Guidelines of the Association of Professional Swiss Advertising Companies VSW Regarding the Commissioning of Professional Agents.”
- 6.
B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 73 to Article 29 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 7.
M. Tschudin, Die verhandelte Strafe, einvernehmliche Regelung neben kartellrechtlicher Sanktion, AJP 2013, p. 1020.
- 8.
Article 30 CartA; M. Tschudin, Die verhandelte Strafe, einvernehmliche Regelung neben kartellrechtlicher Sanktion, AJP 2013, p. 1020.
- 9.
P. Këllezi, Les accords amiables conclus avec les autorités de la concurrence et leurs implications pour les entreprises, in: F. Chabot (ed.), Développements récents en droit commercial III, CEDIDAC 2014, p. 101.
- 10.
RPW 2009/2, pp. 143 ss—“Garden Shears and Hedge Trimmers.”
- 11.
B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 91 to Article 29 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 12.
RPW 2006/4, pp. 667 s.—“Unique Airport.”
- 13.
B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 95 to Article 29 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 14.
S. Howald, Einvernehmliche Regelungen bei sanktionsbedrohten Verhaltensweisen im schweizerischen Kartellrecht, sic! 11/2012, p. 4.
- 15.
B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 49 to Article 29 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 16.
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 12 February 2009, BVGE 2009/35, cpt 7.4.
- 17.
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 September 2014, BVGE B-8430/2010, pts 5.4.26 ff; Decision of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 September 2014, BVGE B-8399/2010, pts 4.4.26 ff.
- 18.
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 27 April 2010, B-2977–2007, pt 8.3.6.
- 19.
P. Këllezi, Les accords amiables conclus avec les autorités de la concurrence et leurs implications pour les entreprises, in: F. Chabot (ed.), Développements récents en droit commercial III, CEDIDAC 2014, pp. 100, 107.
- 20.
The legal qualification can also be influenced by the content of an amicable agreement: where an agreement specifically prohibits a certain type of conduct for the future, it is more likely that the court will assume an admission of guilt. On the other hand, when an agreement merely about future conduct in general is concluded, this is less likely to be considered as admission of guilt. See M. Tschudin, Die verhandelte Strafe, einvernehmliche Regelung neben kartellrechtlicher Sanktion, AJP 2013, pp. 1023 ff.
- 21.
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 3 October 2007, B-2157/2006, pt 3.3.2.
- 22.
Judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 September 2014, B-8404/2010, pt 4.9; judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 September 2014,B-8430/2010, consideration 2.8.
- 23.
S. Bigler, paragraph 63 to Article 39 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010; RPW 2006/2, pp. 347 ff.
- 24.
B. Zirlick and Ch. Tagmann, paragraph 99 to Article 26 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 25.
S. Bigler, paragraph 21 to pre Articles 39–44 CartA. In: Amstutz, Reinert (eds). Basler Kommentar Kartellgesetz, Helbing Lichtenhahn 2010.
- 26.
RPW 2009/3, pp. 196 ff—“Electrical Installation Companies Bern.” Several undertakings were involved in this case. In order to respect the principle of equal treatment, the competition authorities have to inform all of the parties involved about the leniency program.
- 27.
Judgment of the Swiss Supreme Court of 29 June 2012, BGE 139 I 72. This decision lead to a controversial discussion in the doctrine and was mostly criticized (see G. Brei, Kartellrechtsverfahren nach PubliGroupe – offene Fragen und praktische Probleme, SJZ 2014, pp. 177 ff).
- 28.
Judgment of the Swiss Supreme Court of 29 June 2012, BGE 139 I 72.
- 29.
These conditions usually are that the ComCo approves the agreement and stays within the suggested sanctioning framework (M. Tschudin, Die verhandelte Strafe, einvernehmliche Regelung neben kartellrechtlicher Sanktion, AJP 2013, pp. 1025 s.; S. Howald, Einvernehmliche Regelungen bei sanktionsbedrohten Verhaltensweisen im schweizerischen Kartellrecht, sic! 11/2012, p. 5).
- 30.
M. Tschudin, Die verhandelte Strafe, einvernehmliche Regelung neben kartellrechtlicher Sanktion, AJP 2013, pp. 1025 s. with further references; P. Këllezi, Les accords amiables conclus avec les autorités de la concurrence et leurs implications pour les entreprises, in: F. Chabot (ed.), Développements récents en droit commercial III, CEDIDAC 2014, p. 117.
- 31.
Decision of the Federal Administrative Court of 23 September 2014, B-8404/2010, pt 4.9.
- 32.
RPW 2007/2, p. 329 para. 9—“Swissgrid.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Emch, D., Neuenschwander, D., Burkhard, A. (2016). Switzerland. In: Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P., Këllezi, P. (eds) Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27157-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27158-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)