Global Competition Law is primarly a practitioner's guide presenting the most salient aspects of the major competition laws country by country, giving an overview of their structure and most charasteristic elements.
Global Competition Law also provides insight into possible future developments in the field.

Global Competition Law

Under Section 86 of the Act, a party who has suffered any loss or damage directly as a result of an infringement of the Sections 34 and 47 prohibition has a right of action in civil proceedings against the relevant undertakings.
This right of private action can only be exercised after the CCCS has determined that an undertaking has infringed the Sections 34 and 47 prohibition and after the appeal  …

Enforcement by ordinary courts

The CCCS prefers complaints to be filed in writing, giving as much factual information as possible, to enable an initial assessment of the complaint to be carried out as quickly as possible.

After a complaint is received, the CCCS may carry out informal checks and make informal enquiries to the business to clarify the situation or get more information.

The CCCS will launch a formal investigation only when it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the Competition Act has been infringed. The CCCS is empowered to issue notices to require undertakings and their owners/managers/employees to provide information and documents. In certain circumstances, the CCCS has the power to enter premises (with or without a warrant) to obtain the necessary evidence in the form of documents, equipment or information. The term “Premises” refers to business premises and does not include domestic premises unless they are used in connection with the affairs of an undertaking or where documents relating to the affairs of an undertaking are kept there. It also covers vehicles. A warrant may be needed where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that within the premises to be searched, there are documents: (i) which have not been produced although CCCS has demanded their production either in writing or in the course of an inspection without a warrant; (ii) which an investigating officer could have required to be produced in the course of an inspection without a warrant if he could have entered into the premises; or (iii) which would be concealed, removed or tampered with or destroyed, if CCCS were to require their production by written notice. However, the power to require the disclosure of information or documents does not extend to any communication between a professional legal adviser and his client or made in connection with, or in contemplation of, legal proceedings and for the purposes of those proceedings. Communications with in-house lawyers, in addition to lawyers in private practice including foreign lawyers benefit from that privilege (for futher guidance, practitioners should refer to the CCCS's Guidelines on the Powers of Investigation of November 2016).

Complaints and investigations

Where the CCCS proposes to take a decision under the Sections 34 or 47 prohibition, it will give written notice to the undertaking and give the business an opportunity to make representations to the CCCS. The CCCS will then make a decision after considering any representations made.

In December 2016, the former CCS issued a Practice Statement on the Fast Track Procedure for Section 34 and Section 47 cases, whereby undertakings which admit liability for an infringement are eligible for a 10% reduction of the amount of the financial penalty they otherwise incur. This settlement procedure enables the CCCS to achieve procedural efficiencies and resource savings through a streamlined administrative procedure which results in an earlier infringement decision than would have been possible without the fast track procedure. As the CCCS has specified, the leniency policy and the fast track procedure are not mutually exclusive: it is possible for a leniency applicant to benefit from reductions arising from both the leniency policy and the fast track procedure. The fast track procedure can be initiated by the CCCS prior to or after a provisional infringement decision but the parties under investigation may also choose to proactively express their willingness to engage in a fast track procedure discussion. However, the CCCS retains a broad margin of discretion in determining whether or not the case is suitable for the fast track procedure.

Proceedings before the CCCS

Under Section 67 of the Act, where the CCCS has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the prohibitions laid down in Sections 34 or 47 of the Act have been infringed but has not yet completed its investigations into the matter and considers that it is necessary for it to act as a matter of urgency for the purpose of preventing serious, irreparable damage to a particular person or category of persons or of protecting the public interest, it may give such directions as it considers appropriate for that purpose. Before giving a direction under this section, the Commission must give written notice to the person to whom it proposes to give the direction and give that person an opportunity to make representations. The notice must indicate the nature of the directions which the Commission is proposing to give and the reasons for so doing. Such directions may, in particular, include provisions requiring parties to the agreement to modify or terminate the agreement or requiring the person concerned to modify or cease the conduct. Directions on interim measures will not affect the final CCCS decision. The CCCS may seek enforcement of its directions before District Courts even though appeals against them must be lodged before the Competition Appeal Board (for further guidance, practitioners should refer to CCCS's Guidelines on Enforcement of November 2016).

In addition, the Singapore courts may grant interim remedies in the hearing of competition law cases, in the same manner that they may grant interim remedies in the hearing of any case before them.

Interim relief

Under Section 86 of the Act, a party who has suffered any loss or damage directly as a result of an infringement of the Sections 34 and 47 prohibition has a right of action in civil proceedings against the relevant undertakings.

This right of private action can only be exercised after the CCCS has determined that an undertaking has infringed the Sections 34 and 47 prohibition and after the appeal process has been exhausted.

Global Competition Law

1228. Enforcement by ordinary courts

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

1228. Enforcement by ordinary courts

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise