CURIA REGIS

Bandiera Inglese e italiaa CURIA REGIS Romano Pisciotti

Curia regis Nel Medioevo, organismo con il compito di amministrare la giustizia e di consigliare il sovrano in materia politica ed economica. Il termine poteva riferirsi sia all’assemblea dell’aristocrazia feudale, di alcuni cavalieri e delle alte cariche ecclesiastiche, che veniva convocata in particolari occasioni, sia al gruppo ristretto di consiglieri del sovrano.

https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/curia-regis/

Curia Regis” in Latin means “king’s court.” It is also termed as King’s Court or Aula Regis. Curia Regis refers to the Norman English court with a body of advisors, who traveled with the king, advised him on political matters and acted as an appellate court in complicated cases. Later, the functions of the curia regis became exclusively judicial in nature.

Schermata 2021 05 03 alle 18.23.29 CURIA REGIS Romano Pisciotti

Il Re è la fonte di ogni potere, egli quindi in linea teorica ha anche il potere di risolvere le controversie. Tuttavia se da un lato il re organizza un proprio Tribunale (Curia Regis), dall’altra parte riserva a tale Corte unicamente le cause dal suo punto di vista più importanti: la Curia Regis ha competenza a risolvere le cause relative alle finanze regie, all’investitura dei vassalli, alla proprietà ed al possesso dei beni immobili, nonché alle cause penali fonte di pericolo per la pace del Regno. Il Re è direttamente a capo della Curia Regis.
Per tutte le altre cause vengono istituiti dei Tribunali locali: le Corti Baronali. Esse sono strutturate nel singolo feudo, coordinate dal signore feudale.

Schermata 2021 05 03 alle 18.06.04 CURIA REGIS Romano Pisciotti

Guarda le slides:

10748757

 

Presentato da Romano Pisciotti

Foto del 25 10 19 alle 12.32 1024x683 CURIA REGIS Romano Pisciotti
Romano Pisciotti

“Ne bis in idem”…not twice about the same

Bandiera Inglese e italiaa Ne bis in idem...not twice about the same Romano Pisciotti
not twice about the same
Literally translated ne bis in idem meansnot twice about the same’. Put simply—a closer look below will reveal complications—the principle provides that nobody should be judged twice for the same offence. Historically, the principle derives from the Roman law maxim bisde eadem re ne sit actio.

Schermata 2021 03 27 alle 09.15.11 Ne bis in idem...not twice about the same Romano Pisciotti

The Grand Chamber of the of the  Court of Justice, is hearing today two very important cases that relate to the principle of non bis in idem in competition and regulatory proceedings (there has been a flux of such cases recently). Case C-117/20 is about whether that principle applies between regulatory and competition proceedings, where the same facts may be examined under two different legal regimes. There are also interesting questions about limitations on the freedom to conduct business, protected by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These are particularly critical questions for the enforcement of the future Digital Markets Act. Case C-151/20 is about non bis in idem as between national and EU competition law-based proceedings. Particularly interesting is a question whether the above principle applies to the case of immunity recipients, where no fine has been imposed, yet there is a finding of infringement. The fact that these cases are heard by the Grand Chamber may mean that the Court could revisit its Toshiba case law, where it adopted a very conservative and restrictive interpretation of double jeopardy in competition cases. I think it’s about time to align the EU case law on this matter.
FROM:lin Ne bis in idem...not twice about the same Romano Pisciotti
Traduzione:
La Grande Sezione del Court of Justice of the European Union sta ascoltando oggi due casi molto importanti che riguardano il principio del non bis in idem nei procedimenti in materia di concorrenza e regolamentazione (recentemente si è avuto un flusso di tali casi). La causa C-117/20 riguarda l’applicazione di tale principio tra procedimenti normativi e di concorrenza, qualora gli stessi fatti possano essere esaminati nell’ambito di due regimi giuridici diversi. Vi sono anche interessanti domande sulle limitazioni alla libertà di condurre affari, tutelate dall’articolo 16 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali. Si tratta di questioni particolarmente critiche per l’applicazione della futura legge sui mercati digitali. Il caso C-151/20 riguarda il non bis in idem tra procedimenti nazionali e comunitari basati sul diritto della concorrenza. Particolarmente interessante è la questione se il principio di cui sopra si applichi al caso dei beneficiari dell’immunità, in cui non è stata inflitta alcuna ammenda, ma vi è una constatazione di infrazione. Il fatto che tali cause siano state eseudite dalla Grande Sezione può significare che la Corte potrebbe riesaminare la sua giurisprudenza Toshiba, in cui ha adottato un’interpretazione molto conservatrice e restrittiva della doppia incrivizione nelle cause in materia di concorrenza. Penso che sia giunto il momento di allineare la giurisprudenza dell’UE in materia.
Presented by Romano Pisciotti

Esiste un giudice a…

La giustizia britannica ha respinto la contestata istanza di estradizione negli Usa di Julian Assange, dove il fondatore australiano di WikiLeaks è accusato di spionaggio e pirateria per aver contribuito a svelare file riservati americani relativi fra l’altro a crimini di guerra in Afghanistan e Iraq. A emettere il verdetto, a sorpresa rispetto alle attese, è stata la giudice Vanessa Baraister.

Gli Usa sono “estremamente delusi” dalla decisione delle autorità giudiziarie britanniche di non concedere l’estradizione del fondatore di Wikileaks Julian Assange negli Stati Uniti. Lo afferma il dipartimento di giustizia americano.

 

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

British justice has rejected Julian Assange’s disputed  petition to the US, where the Australian founder of WikiLeaks is accused of espionage and piracy for helping to uncover confidential American files relating, among other things, to war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Surprisingly compared to expectations, the verdict was issued by judge Vanessa Baraister. Assange, who faced a 175-year sentence overseas, would be at risk of suicide, the judge ruled.

Foto del 12 10 20 alle 18.10 1024x683 Esiste un giudice a... Romano Pisciotti
Romano Pisciotti

Mergers and Acquisitions

No introduction to antitrust legislation would be complete without addressing mergers and acquisitions. We can divide these into horizontal, vertical and potential competition mergers.

Horizontal Mergers: When firms with dominant market shares prepare to enter a merger, the FTC must decide whether the new entity will be able to exert monopolistic and anti-competitive pressures on the remaining firms. For example, the company that makes Malibu Rum and had an 8% market share of total rum sales, proposed buying the company that makes Captain Morgan’s rums, which had a 33% of total sales to form a new company holding 41% market share.7

Meanwhile, the incumbent dominant firm held over 54% of sales. This would mean the premium rum market would be composed of two competitors together responsible for over 95% of sales in total. The FTC challenged the merger on the grounds that the two remaining companies could collude to raise prices and forced Malibu to divest its rum business.7

Unilateral Effects. The FTC will often challenge mergers between rival firms that offer close substitutes, on the grounds that the merger will eliminate beneficial competition and innovation. In 2004, the FTC did just that, by challenging a merger between General Electric and a rival firm, as the rival firm manufactured competitive non-destructive testing equipment. In order to go forward with the merger, GE agreed to divest its non-destructive testing equipment business.8

Vertical Mergers. Mergers between buyers and sellers can improve cost savings and business synergies, which can translate to competitive prices for consumers. But when the vertical merger can have a negative effect on competition due to a competitor’s inability to access supplies, the FTC may require certain provisions prior to the completion of the merger. For example, Valero Energy had to divest certain businesses and form an informational firewall when it acquired an ethanol terminator operator.9

Potential Competition Mergers. Over the years, the FTC has challenged rampant preemptive merger activity in the pharmaceutical industry between dominant firms and would-be or new market entrants to facilitate competition and entry into the industry.

Antitrust law

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

Foto del 12 10 20 alle 18.10 1024x683 Mergers and Acquisitions Romano Pisciotti
Romano Pisciotti

MAYBE THE EUROPEAN COURT IS WAKING UP

“In its judgment in Case C-59/19 Wikingerhof the CJEU has ruled that a hotel using the platform Booking.com may, in principle, bring proceedings against Booking.com before a court of the Member State in which that hotel is established in order to bring to an end a possible abuse of a dominant position. According to the Court, in so far as such an action is based on the legal obligation to refrain from any abuse of a dominant position, it is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of point 2 of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia).”

To learn more about this and other recent CJEU cases, join ERA’s Webinar on Latest Developments in EU Antitrust Law on 10 December 2020.

CORTE MAYBE THE EUROPEAN COURT IS WAKING UP Romano Pisciotti Schermata 2020 12 08 alle 09.36.26 MAYBE THE EUROPEAN COURT IS WAKING UP Romano Pisciotti

 

Presented by Romano PIsciotti

Creative destruction

How Antitrust Regulation Hinders Innovation and Competition

Few economic concepts elicit such strong reactions as that of monopoly, and the policy intended to address it—antitrust regulations (called competition policy in the European Union). Yet, both supporters and opponents of antitrust regulations agree on one fundamental point—that effective competition is vital to the American economy and the welfare of its citizens. However, they differ in how the law should encourage this. There are essentially three schools of thought regarding antitrust policy:

  1. Interventionist. Regulators should use the law proactively to break up companies that are abusing their market power and restore a competitive market. The size of a company is a good guide as to when this should be done.
  2. Consumer welfare. Abuse of market power is rare and dominant market positions can be achieved through delivering improvements in consumer welfare. Therefore, antitrust laws should be used not to break up companies that have grown big through successful competition, but to address instances of collusion, price fixing, or other anti-competitive behavior.
  3. Free market. Antitrust law is unnecessary. Market processes routinely undermine monopolies—and attempts to create monopolies. Laws against “unfair competition” prevent property owners from experimenting with joint ventures and other innovations that can improve consumer welfare.

Until recently, there was a sharp partisan divide between these schools, which can be roughly described as liberal, conservative, and libertarian, respectively. Traditionally in practice, this meant that antitrust conservatives would more often side with the libertarian camp, while leaving some room for cooperation with the liberal faction. However, the recent rise of “big tech” has led some conservatives to turn to the most interventionist approach with a zeal that threatens innovation in America’s world-leading technology industry.

The interventionist approach suffers from the same problems classical liberal economists have long identified with government interventions in markets.

First, there is the “knowledge problem”—how do regulators know better than the market what the best market structure is?

Then there are what are known as public choice considerations—regulators might exercise their powers to promote their own preferred policy positions. The very existence of those powers will lead to intense lobbying by regulated entities—both those seeking regulatory relief and those who benefit from entry barriers that limit competition from potential new entrants in a market.

The consumer welfare approach also has problems. Retaining antitrust law as an option that may be used against entrepreneurs carries the same threat to innovation posed by the interventionist approach. For instance, politicians with an animus against certain companies may pressure regulators into opposing mergers involving those companies. Regulators assessing unfair competition will not be immune from the knowledge problem and public choice effects. Entrepreneurs, eager to avoid provoking antitrust enforcement actions, will be dissuaded from pursuing innovations that might run afoul of the law.

The third approach, abolishing antitrust law, is extremely controversial. There is a widespread belief, among policy makers, the media, and the public, that without the threat of antitrust law, companies will disregard customer preferences, extract excessive profits, and kill off competitors. Yet there is no such thing as a dominant market position unless it is guaranteed by government. AOL, Borders, Blockbuster, Sears, Kodak, and many other firms once considered dominant in their markets have fallen as the result of competition, without any antitrust action.

This process of creative destruction, succinctly described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter, is a major driver of the kind of innovation that helps raise living standards. It will surely continue unless, ironically, antitrust regulators gain too much power. Were that to happen, large firms will be tempted to reach accommodations with a government that restricts their activities in exchange for not being broken up. Those accommodations will usually include protections and guarantees that act as entry barriers against potential innovative challengers. The result will be less competition, fewer innovations, and lower consumer welfare.

Creative destruction is the best answer to dominant market positions. Rather than use antitrust law aggressively, those who wish to see big companies fall quickly should instead work to end antitrust law. As for other barriers to creative destruction—for instance, financial regulations that make launching an initial public offering of stock prohibitively costly—increased competition can be achieved through deregulation in those other areas.

 

Presented by Romano Pisciotti

“…a white swan in a pitch-black sea”

It has been engulfed by a massive corruption scandal in Brazil (2018), where it bribed officials in the state oil company Petrobras in order to secure contracts.

SBM ...a white swan in a pitch black sea Romano Pisciotti

SBM Offshore N.V. (IHC Caland N.V. prior to July 2005) is a Dutch-based global group of companies selling systems and services to the offshore oil and gas industry.

SBM Offshore has avoided criminal prosecution in the Netherlands by paying a record settlement of $240 million to the Dutch Public prosecutor ‘While in Brazil the Petrobras corruption affair — and SBM Offshore’s major role in it — is inexorably building to a climax, the temperature in Netherlands appears to have dropped after a record settlement was reached with the Dutch Public Prosecutor (OM) in November last year. The biggest corruption case in the Dutch history was bought off by SBM for a record $240 million in exchange for which no court case followed and no admission of guilt was entered. To the OM it was important the company had implemented major reforms to prevent re-offending. “We are now a white swan in a pitch-black sea,” said a relieved and proud SBM director Sietse Hepkema in an interview with leading Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad last December. The man hired to clean up the company said he didn’t expect further fines in Brazil. “I really think we paid our dues, “he said. And “I refuse to be Brazil’s smelly kid in the classroom.”‘ In order to be able to take part in Petrobras contracts in the future, SBM has also agreed to a R$1 billion settlement with the Brazilian government. Nevertheless, many of SBM’s executives still face criminal charges in Brazil.

SBM Offshore’s former CEO Tony Mace has been sentenced to three years in prison for his involvement in an international bribery conspiracy.

Browsing the web, Romano Pisciotti

The first extradition agreement in history (con versione in italiano)

 

Italian and English version The first extradition agreement in history (con versione in italiano) Romano Pisciotti

Ramses II”, who reigned for 67 years during the 19th dynasty of the 12th century BC, was known as “Ramses the Great”. His glories surpassed all other Pharaohs, and Egypt reached an overwhelming state of prosperity during his reign. Not only is he known as one of Egypt’s greatest warriors, but also as a peace-maker and for the monuments he left behind all over Egypt. He was the first king in history to sign a peace treaty with his enemies, the Hittites, ending long years of wars and hostility. The treaty can still be considered a conclusive model, even when applying todays standards.

Ramses II “, che regnò per 67 anni durante la XIX dinastia del XII secolo a.c., era noto come” Ramses il Grande “. Le sue glorie superarono quelle di tutti i Faraoni  e l’Egitto raggiunse uno stato di prosperità travolgente durante il suo regno; non solo è conosciuto come uno dei più grandi guerrieri dell’Egitto, ma anche come pacificatore e per i monumenti che ha lasciato in tutto l’Egitto. Fu il primo re della storia a firmare un trattato di pace con i suoi nemici, gli Ittiti, ponendo fine a lunghi anni di guerre e ostilità Il trattato può ancora essere considerato un modello conclusivo, anche quando si applicano gli standard odierni.
Ramset The first extradition agreement in history (con versione in italiano) Romano Pisciotti

The treaty was composed of 18 articles. After a long introduction recording the kings titles and referring to establishment of good fraternity and peace, one article was included to exclude any further attacks on the other countrys territories:

“Reamasesa, the great king, the king of the country of Egypt, shall never attack the country of Hatti to take possession of a part (of this country). And Hattusili, the great king, the king of the country of Hatti, shall never attack the country of Egypt to take possession of a part (of that country). “

Il trattato era composto da 18 articoli. Dopo una lunga introduzione che registra i titoli dei re e fa riferimento alla creazione di una buona fraternità e pace, è stato incluso un articolo per escludere ulteriori attacchi ai territori degli altri paesi:

“Reamasesa, il grande re, il re del paese d’Egitto, non attaccherà mai il paese di Hatti per prendere possesso di una parte (di questo paese). E Hattusili, il grande re, il re del paese di Hatti, dovrà non attaccare mai il paese d’Egitto per impossessarsi di una parte (di quel paese) “.

pietr The first extradition agreement in history (con versione in italiano) Romano Pisciotti

The treaty then included three articles establishing mutual collaboration against any internal mutiny or coups in either country.

Il trattato includeva quindi tre articoli che stabilivano la collaborazione reciproca contro qualsiasi ammutinamento interno o colpi di stato in entrambi i paesi.

To avoid any further dispute, if a refugee flees to the other country, ten articles were dedicated to their extradition. This was the first extradition agreement in history between two nations. The treaty did not exclude any person, and regardless of whether they were “great men”, nobles or “unknown persons”

Per evitare ulteriori controversie, se un rifugiato dovesse fuggire nell’altro Paese, dieci articoli sono stati dedicati alla loro estradizione. Questo è stato il primo accordo di estradizione nella storia tra due nazioni. Il trattato non escludeva alcuna persona, indipendentemente dal fatto che fossero “grandi uomini”, nobili o “persone sconosciute”

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/treaty.htm

presented by Romano Pisciotti

Romano Pisciotti copia The first extradition agreement in history (con versione in italiano) Romano Pisciotti
Romano Pisciotti

Ricchezza senza freni

Jeff Bezos: primo a superare la soglia dei 200 miliardi

La ricchezza fondatore di Amazon, già l’uomo più ricco del mondo dal 2017, continua a segnare nuovi record, grazie all’aumento vertiginoso del valore delle azioni del colosso dell’ecommerce (+25% negli ultimi tre mesi, +86% da inizio anno).

Risultato finale. La ricchezza del CEO di Amazon ha sfondato il tetto del 200 miliardi di dollari, impresa in cui nessuno era riuscito prima. Per la precisione, secondo l’indice Bloomberg Billionaires, mercoledì scorso la ricchezza personale di Bezos valeva circa $ 202 miliardi.

“Per anni col suo negozio di materiale elettrico ha avuto benessere per se e per la famiglia. Pagava tasse salate e l’affitto, lo stipendio a due dipendenti e tutto correva normalmente, ma poi è intervenuta la distribuzione via internet. “Ordini, ti portano a casa il materiale e paghi meno di quanto pago io al grossista lo stesso pezzo”.

Ormai quel negozio è l’ombra di se stesso, niente più dipendenti, pochissimi clienti, lavora per pagare l’affitto e le tasse. Perchè tiene ancora aperto ? Mi dice …Ho passato gli anni belli della mia vita qui dentro e chiudere mi sembra morire. L’orgoglio di un piccolo imprenditore contro Amazon e simili che giocano a chi ne fa chiudere di più fino a radere al suolo il commercio al dettaglio. Però, quando avranno tutto in mano, potranno decidere anche di alzare i prezzi perchè non servirà più la micidiale concorrenza sleale contro i piccoli.”

Giulio Rossi Valdisole

…la ricchezza del CEO di Facebook (FB), Mark Zuckerberg ha superato i 100 miliardi di dollari.

Il CEO di Tesla (TSLA) Elon Musk, con un patrimonio netto di $ 96 miliardi ( a dispetto del colossale indebitamento delle sue aziende), è vicino a eguagliare la ricchezza di Zuckerberg. Il fondatore di Microsoft (MSFT) Bill Gates lo ha già fatto (124,3 miliardi).

Presentato da Romano Pisciotti