{"id":2953,"date":"2019-10-31T20:18:18","date_gmt":"2019-10-31T19:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/?p=2953"},"modified":"2019-10-31T20:18:21","modified_gmt":"2019-10-31T19:18:21","slug":"conference-debriefing-15-forum-unternehmensrecht-zur-10-gwb-novelle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/blog\/2019\/10\/31\/conference-debriefing-15-forum-unternehmensrecht-zur-10-gwb-novelle\/","title":{"rendered":"Conference Debriefing (15): Forum on the 10th amendment of the German competition act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><em>The tour has kicked\noff: In D\u00fcsseldorf, the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy\n(\u201cMEAE\u201d) appeared in persona of three senior representatives to introduce and\ndiscuss the draft bill on the 10<sup>th<\/sup> reform of the Act against\nRestraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkungen or \u201cGWB\u201d).\nAnna-Jacqueline Limprecht and Hans-Markus Wagener report on how the first major\ntest around D\u00fcsseldorf\u2019s competition law scene went. Here is their Conference\nDebriefing!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Event Name:<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forum\non the 10<sup>th<\/sup> Amendment of the GWB<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Venue &amp; Time:<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Heinrich\nHeine University D\u00fcsseldorf, 29 October 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Host:<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Institute\nfor Competition Law (IKartR) | Institute for Corporate Law (IUR)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Participants:<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; First\nand foremost, the headliners, namely three of the main authors of the draft bill\nfrom the MEAE:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Dr. Thorsten K\u00e4seberg<\/strong> (Head of the Department of Competition and Consumer Policy, Fundamental\nIssues of Competition Policy)<\/li><li><strong>Dr. Maja Murza<\/strong>\n(team member ibid.)<\/li><li><strong>Dr. Tobias Brenner<\/strong> (Federal Cartel Office, formerly seconded to the MEAE from there)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>As audience\/discussants, there gathered\naround 130 antitrust law experts from different backgrounds, i.e. judges and\nlawyers as well as academics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Hold\non a second, there <em>is<\/em> a draft bill?!<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>You bet! After the original event date at the beginning of September had to be postponed due to ongoing fine-tuning, D&#8217;Kart <a href=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/blog\/2019\/10\/14\/der-referentenentwurf-zum-gwb\/\">published the draft <\/a>on 14 October. The representatives of the MEAE confirmed in advance that the D&#8217;Kart version still is the current state of work. Even though the official publication of the draft bill is still pending, it is currently scheduled to take place sometime next week. The ongoing delay results, among other things, out of the necessity to coordinate with other ministries, in particular with the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, which is currently working on major changes in corporate sanctions law. In any case, the box behind the adoption of the #GWB10 draft bill by the Federal Cabinet should still be checked this year in order for the bill to enter the parliamentary process as soon as possible in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/P1050389-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2949\"\/><figcaption>Stood up to the discussion in D\u00fcsseldorf: Tobias Brenner, Maja Murza, Thorsten K\u00e4seberg (fltr).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">So,\npeople in the Ministry come together and just write down whatever they think of\nfor such a draft bill?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Haha, far from it (maybe in their dreams, but\nmore on that at the end\u2026)! Thorsten K\u00e4seberg, the leader of the evening\u2019s <s>three\nmain actors<\/s> trio reminded the audience at their \u201ctour kick-off\u201d of the\nworking principles from which the draft bill was to be developed. The central\npolitical objectives of the project are laid out in the government parties\u2019 \u201ccoalition\nagreement\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In concrete terms, this political agreement\nprovides for (i) innovation with regard to the competition law challenges of digitization\nwith a special focus on the taming of certain platform companies (i.e. Google,\nAmazon and Co.), as well as (ii) the acceleration of &#8220;competition law\nproceedings&#8221; in general (the coalition agreement does not provide for a distinction\nbetween administrative and court proceedings). With regard to EU law, #GWB10\nalso required the implementation of the requirements laid down by the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=CELEX:32019L0001&amp;from=EN\">ECN-Plus Directive (Directive\n2019\/1)<\/a> for the Member\nStates\u2019 national law. The Directive\u2019s objective is to strengthen the national\ncompetition authorities in order to enable them to enforce EU competition law\nto the fullest degree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How\nwill the power of the big players be tamed in the future?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>This is exactly the core question to which #GWB10 is supposed to provide <s>final<\/s> comprehensive answers in the context of market abuse provisions. The #GWB10 authors were given suitable input, in particular in the form of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/blog\/2018\/09\/05\/next-level-competition-law-the-study-that-will-serve-as-a-basis-for-the-reform-of-abusive-practices-in-germany-and-europe\/\">the report <\/a>by Heike Schweitzer, Justus Haucap, Wolfgang Kerber and Robert Welker (<a href=\"https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=3262210\">Modernising the Law on Abuse of Market Power<\/a>) and by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/blog\/2019\/09\/09\/competition-4-0\/\">Competition Commission 4.0<\/a>. Even though the latter had a special mandate focusing on the EU level, the MEAE representatives stressed that the problems that have to be solved in the area of abuse are ultimately the same at the European as well as at the national level. The results of these reports have thus in part been incorporated into the draft bill (e.g. the planned \u00a7\u00a7 18 (3b), 20 (1) 2 GWB on the specific concept of \u201cintermediation power\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The character of the planned changes ranges\nfrom declaratory to revolutionary. Purely declaratory purpose can be attributed\nto the explicit inclusion of access to data as a criterion for the assessment\nof an undertaking\u2019s market position. That is to clarify that the central\nimportance of data should also be considered in the environment of non-digital\nmarkets. Ultimately, this is based on the ideas behind the well-established\nessential facilities doctrine, which must correspondingly be applied to non-physical\ninfrastructures. \u00a7 19 (2) No. 4 GWB is thus supplemented by including the\nrefusal of access to data and networks to the list of abusive practices. In\naddition, it shall be possible to <s>tackle<\/s> prevent the so-called tipping\nof entire markets. To this end, \u00a7&nbsp;20&nbsp;(3a)&nbsp;GWB introduces a new\nform of abusive behaviour, which will specifically refer to the prevention of\npositive network effects on multilateral markets as defined in \u00a7 18 (3a) GWB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Smells\nlike revolution! Is there even more to come?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>One more thing. The most significant revolution\nmight be the introduction of the new \u00a7&nbsp;19a GWB, which addresses &#8220;<em>undertakings with paramount significance for\ncompetition across markets<\/em> &#8221; (&#8220;UPSCAM&#8221;). These are to be\nstrictly distinguished from market-dominant companies. Doctrinally, it remained\nunclear (at least for now) whether UPSCAM in relation to dominant companies\nrepresented an <em>aliud<\/em> \u2013 as suggested by\nPetra Pohlmann \u2013 or if the term rather refers to some kind of \u201cmarket dominance\nplus X\u201d. Nevertheless, it became clear that the circle of potential addressees\nof the provision is very exquisite and thus extremely narrow according to the\nideas of the authors. Thus, it could be carefully elaborated that a UPSCAM has\nto be thought of as a player of systematic relevance in the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/P1050461-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2943\"\/><figcaption>Many familiar faces in the audience!<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a7 19a GWB essentially authorizes the Federal\nCartel Office (\u201cFCO\u201d) to intervene against certain, explicitly delicate and\ntherefore specified behaviors of an UPSCAM. On the basis of a two-stage system\nlaid down in the #GWB10 draft bill, the FCO can first determine in accordance\nwith para. 1 that an undertaking is an UPSCAM in order to then \u2013 based on para.\n2 \u2013 prohibit adopting abusive practices that harm competition. The specific\npractices that can be subjected to this procedure are incorporated in an\nexhaustive catalogue of infringements in \u00a7&nbsp;19a (2)&nbsp;GWB (including\ne.g. self-preferencing through the use of intermediation power as well as &#8220;leveraging&#8221;).\nMaja Murza stressed that it would in practice be necessary for the FCO to put a\ntime limit on the duration of the injunction in light of the general rule of\nlaw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As currently envisioned, the prohibition order is\nonly permissible if the specific conduct is not objectively justified. However,\nonce the injunction has been issued, the burden of proof for an alleged\njustification lies with the affected UPSCAM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hans J\u00fcrgen Meyer-Lindemann said that\nespecially with regard to \u00a7&nbsp;19a this is no longer a \u201csmall revolution\u201d (as\nhad purportedly been said by a high-ranking member of the Bundeskartellamt),\nbut a real one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">That\u2019s\nquite something! The audience must have found themselves speechless?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Not at all! It would certainly have taken more\nthan one evening just to satisfy the thirst for discourse on the matters of market\nabuse. There was some concern expressed by the audience that the identification\nof the addressee and the prohibition order could coincide with each other.\nConsequently, an undertaking could only have clarity about its status as UPSCAM\nor addressee of \u00a7&nbsp;19a&nbsp;GWB as soon as it got mail from Bonn concerning\na prohibition decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thorsten K\u00e4seberg, however, emphasized that the\npath they had chosen in designing \u00a7&nbsp;19a was one closely mirroring classic\nantitrust law concepts. In that, \u00a7&nbsp;19a&nbsp;GWB would essentially spell\nout the results of the <a href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/competition\/publications\/reports\/kd0419345enn.pdf\">report offered by the special advisors\nappointed by Margrethe Vestager<\/a> for the German legal environment. Nevertheless, together with Maja\nMurza, he predicted that in the near future we would see other legislative\napproaches not only in the Member States but also at EU level which will be much\nless based on classic legal concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Can\nI join in? I mean \u2013 will there be private enforcement?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Several voices in the audience read the current\nwording as open towards private enforcement. Thus, at least once a prohibition\norder was issued, this could be enough ground for a cease and desist claim pursuant\nto \u00a7 33 (1)&nbsp;GWB. Tobias Brenner replied that private enforcement under \u00a7\n19a GWB was at least not intended to have an initiative function. Thus, \u00a7&nbsp;33&nbsp;GWB\n\u2013 if at all \u2013 could by concept only be considered in a case in which the FCO\nhad already issued a prohibition order. Vice versa he saw no room for\n\u00a7&nbsp;33&nbsp;GWB when the UPSCAM status has not (yet) been formally\nestablished by the FCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The new concept also received some praise, by\nMichael Baron and Wolfgang Kerber for instance, who both saw a careful approach\nthat offered promising solutions to the burning issues of the present time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">And what about the\nimplementation of ECN+?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Even though everyone is officially talking about the\n&#8220;GWB-digitization law&#8221;, the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/PDF\/?uri=CELEX:32019L0001&amp;from=de\">ECN+ directive<\/a> actually is the origin of the amendment. The Member\nStates <s>fortunately<\/s> still have time until 4 February 2021 to transpose the\ndirective into national law. In order to empower the competition authorities of\nthe Member States, the parties involved could hardly deviate from the\nrequirements from Brussels \u2013 full harmonization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the principle that &#8220;<em>parents are liable for their children<\/em>&#8220;,\nthe amendment refers to the undertaking as an economic unit. In addition to the\ncompetition authorities\u2019 new authority to carry out questionings in the course\nof dawn raids, Maja Murza explained that Article 8 of the Directive is more or\nless directly addressed to Germany. Through the Directive, there is now a new\n&#8220;investigation tool&#8221; which has been missing in the toolbox of the\nGerman competition authorities. This refers to the power of the cartel\nauthorities to require undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide\nall necessary information, which is now regulated in \u00a7&nbsp;59 and \u00a7&nbsp;81&nbsp;m\nfor administrative and fining proceedings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">This means that the\ncompetition authorities can now dig into their toolbox and obtain information\nin detailed Q&amp;A sessions. Is there not such a thing as <em>nemo tenetur<\/em>? <\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Natural persons shall be protected from\nself-incrimination. For this purpose, on the one hand, a prohibition of the use\nof evidence will be introduced. On the other hand, the antitrust authorities\ncan promise not to prosecute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Well then, everything\nshould be clear and everyone should be fully protected. <\/h1>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/P1050424-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2947\"\/><figcaption>Hans J\u00fcrgen Meyer-Lindemann, diagnosing a revolution.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Well, some guests were of a completely different\nopinion. Hans J\u00fcrgen Meyer-Lindemann, for example, was convinced that <em>nemo tenetur<\/em> was not given adequate\nattention and that the coexistence of individuals (<em>Betroffene<\/em>) and companies (<em>Nebenbetroffene<\/em>)\nwas not taken into consideration. The new regulations protect individuals, but not\nat all the companies behind them. They would have to expect that employees would\nbe given protection by a promise not to prosecute them and that these employees\nwould then testify against the company, thereby undermining its protection by\nthe <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/HTML\/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0374&amp;from=DE\">standards\nfrom Orkem<\/a>. This workaround, so the argument, is unconstitutional. Maja\nMurza largely rejected this claim with reference to the extensive legal review of\nthe rules that had taken place. Nevertheless, the speakers pointed out that the\ndraft is still &#8220;<em>work in progress<\/em>&#8220;.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The role of the Federal\nCartel Office before national courts was also discussed?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The case law in <a href=\"http:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf?docid=83436&amp;text=&amp;dir=&amp;doclang=EN&amp;part=1&amp;occ=first&amp;mode=DOC&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;cid=8832232\">VEBIC<\/a> is to be codified and thus an active part in the appeal procedure for\nthe competition authorities is to be ensured (see Article 30 of the Directive).\nThe exclusive competence of the public prosecutor existing to date is therefore\nno longer in conformity with the Directive. The draft now introduces dual\ncompetence. Everyone can imagine the consequences of this in practice. In this\nrespect, there is (secretly) hope for concerted practices between the <s>undertakings<\/s>\nauthorities. It may not seem entirely unrealistic that the public prosecutor\u2019s\noffice will in due course make use of its discretion according to \u00a775 of the\nAct on Regulatory Offences and withdraw from the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Now to the really\nimportant issues. Everybody wants it, nobody has it and, even more, nobody\nwants to give it away: money! <\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course, the topic of the imposition of fines was\nnot missing. Following the <em>Grauzement I<\/em>\ndecision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), it is now to be codified that\nthe so-called turnover achieved from the infringement must be considered for\nthe setting of fines. However, the audience also noted that the Higher Regional\nCourt (OLG) was not subsequently bound by the setting of fines by the\ncompetition authority. Therefore, the current trend to increase the amount of\nfines at Court would not be stopped. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The speakers agreed. However, #GWB10 authors had tried\nto satisfy all interests in the best possible way and, in particular, had taken\ninto account the prohibition of mathematical specifications in order to\npreserve the independence of the judiciary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is not clear yet what #GWB10 will contain on the\nconsideration of the behavior after the administrative offence (<em>Nachtatverhalten<\/em>). #GWB10 authors are\njust working on it. In any case, the speakers assured us that the authors had taken\nnote of the topic of compliance and had made efforts in this regard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A few words on merger\ncontrol&#8230;<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The second domestic turnover threshold will be raised\nfrom 5 to 10 million, the time frame for the second phase proceedings will be\nextended from 4 to 5 months and the ministerial approval will in future require\nthat an application for an interim injunction has been rejected as unfounded or\nthat the appeal was dismissed as unfounded by the D\u00fcsseldorf court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">On consumer protection,\nthere are no new powers for the FCO in the amendment.<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Very clear announcement of the speakers: \u201cPeople did\nnot want to take that step now.\u201d The FCO&#8217;s <s>failure<\/s> decision on Facebook\nhas so far not been able to change this view. Tobias Brenner predicts that in 5\nyears there will be certainly a different situation in law. True to the motto\n&#8220;<em>Who offers more?<\/em>&#8220;, this\nchange could be due to the <em>New Deal For\nConsumers<\/em> \u2013 it is already knocking on Maja Murza&#8217;s door.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Are there any goodies in\nthe amendment?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>First of all, more legal certainty should be created\nfor cooperation agreements. Among other things, undertakings and associations will\nin future have the right to obtain a decision within a period of 6 months that\nthere is no reason for the cartel authority to take action. The <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/HTML\/?uri=CELEX:32003R0001&amp;from=EN\">Regulation 1\/2003<\/a> served as reference to limit this period. So, according\nto the speakers&#8217; own statements, they had <em>really<\/em>\nthought about European law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">After that Broadcom\ninterim measure<a href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/commission\/presscorner\/detail\/en\/ip_19_6109\"> by the\nCommission<\/a>, such\nstuff is now standard, right?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The requirements for an intervention in #GWB10 for potentially\nharming effects and the evidence are moderately lowered. However, a new aspect\nis that the imminent threat of serious harm to another undertaking is taken into\nconsideration in this context. To avoid that this regulation has a severe\nimpact on the undertakings, sentence 2 of the new \u00a7&nbsp;32a provides for an\nexception. To this end, the undertaking has to present facts according to which\nthe order would result in an unacceptable hardship not required by overriding\npublic interest. The aim is a better operability, especially in digital cases.\nThese changes <s>have been copied<\/s> were taken from other national\nregulations (e.g. France, UK). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">When it comes to private damage\nclaims, we are literally guessing what will happen now&#8230;<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>&#8230; exactly: the presumption that customers are\naffected by the cartel. Even if this presumption was not obvious at first, it\nseems to be important enough to be mentioned in the amendment. A rebuttable\npresumption is introduced for direct and indirect customers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/P1050434-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2945\"\/><figcaption>Harald Kahlenberg at the mic.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>With a view to decisions by the OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, a\nclarification regarding the urgency requirement was also necessary. Therefore,\nno urgency needs to be shown in order to demand the handing over of a decision.\nThis was probably &#8220;<em>not a doctrinally\nclean regulation, but a practically operable solution<\/em>&#8220;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why not just insert a\npresumption of damage?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Tobias Brenner replied spontaneously that people with\nproposals regarding the level of damages may step forward\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Our dear <s>plaintiffs<\/s> readers should feel the call\nat this point to mail a few more suggestions to the ministry&#8230; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">And the next tour dates?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The official release of the draft is hoped to take\nplace next week. But it\u2019s not all over yet. On the question when exactly a decision\nby the government is to be expected, the speakers directed our attention to\ntheir right of refusal to comment in order to protect themselves. However, it\nwas announced that the parliamentary procedure for #GWB10 will (probably) be\ncompleted in the first half of 2020. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Do\nsay<\/strong>: &#8220;We try to\nmake everything possible&#8230;&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Don&#8217;t say<\/strong>: &#8220;&#8230;but we work in a political context.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/P1050493-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"v.l.n.r. Jannik Otto, Tobias Brenner, Christian Kersting, Maja Murza, Thorsten K\u00e4seberg, Patrick Hauser)\" class=\"wp-image-2940\"\/><figcaption>A good start for the tour: Jannik Otto, Tobias Brenner, Christian Kersting, Maja Murza, Thorsten K\u00e4seberg, Patrick Hauser (fltr).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Anna-Jacqueline Limprecht and Hans-Markus Wagener are researches and doctoral candidates at the chair of Prof. Dr. Christian Kersting at Heinrich Heine University D\u00fcsseldorf.<\/em> <em>Photos by Sarah Langenstein.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The tour has kicked off: In D\u00fcsseldorf, the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (\u201cMEAE\u201d) appeared in persona of three senior representatives to introduce and discuss the draft bill on the 10th reform of the Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkungen or \u201cGWB\u201d). Anna-Jacqueline Limprecht and Hans-Markus Wagener report on how the first major test around D\u00fcsseldorf\u2019s competition law scene went. Here is their Conference Debriefing! Event Name:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Forum on the 10th Amendment of the GWB Venue&#8230;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"><a class=\"btn btn-default\" href=\"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/blog\/2019\/10\/31\/conference-debriefing-15-forum-unternehmensrecht-zur-10-gwb-novelle\/\"> Read More<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">  Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":2951,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[253],"tags":[269,275,132],"class_list":["post-2953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-conference-debriefings","tag-10-gwb-novelle","tag-bmwi","tag-conference-debriefing"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.0","language":"en","enabled_languages":["de","en"],"languages":{"de":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2953"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2953\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2980,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2953\/revisions\/2980"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2951"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}