Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Another case, for which, however, no official report has been obtained. is stated to be substantially as follows: An association of fruit wholesalers in the Netherlands had an agreement concerning prices and blacklists, with penalties for infractions thereof. A member of the association. contrary to the agreement, purchased from blacklisted firms, and was sued by the association for the payment of penalties. The court held that the association was established to uphold the interests of its members, and that the defendant had injured such interests and gave judgment for the penalty according to the agreement.1

The Civil Code also contains in article 1401 a provision applicable to unfair competition substantially similar to article 1352 of the French and Belgian codes. No application of this provision to cartel practices has been noted.

Section 19. Sweden.

The general laws of Sweden contain, apparently, no provisions which are applicable to combinations to control the market."

REGULATION OF IRON-ORE EXPORTS.-The Swedish Government made an agreement with an iron-ore mining company in 1907, which is of significance in this connection. According to this agreement it has become a shareholder in the company and regulates the exportation of iron ore. The general basis and purposes of this agreement. are set forth in the following statement of the Swedish Prime Minister in 1910:

Formerly our laws permitted the discoverer of an ore deposit on crown-land to become sole owner of the same. This system, which was intended to promote the discovery of new ores, was changed so as to preserve for the state the right of ownership and the control of those ore deposits, first to the effect that the discoverer receives one-half and the state the other, such as is the case with deposits on private ground. Later on, all claims upon crown-land in the Northern provinces, where the state owns extensive areas, were prohibited in anticipation of legislation, and finally it was decided this year to lay out certain areas around the great ore fields as government mining fields within which no claims shall be located.

Very likely you all know that our largest iron ore resources are in Gellivare and Kiirunavaara. When the government decided in 1898 to build a railway for the exploitation of the last mentioned mining field, the idea had already been conceived that a limitation of the export was desirable, and this limit was put down at 1,200,000 tons a year. In the same degree in which it became more and more obvious that these ore resources were enormous and could easily be disposed of, the demand for an increased export grew; but at the same time also the state asserted its right to regulate the exportation in such a manner that it should not go on too rapidly. This sitati a led to negociations between the government and the owners of the ore fields, with the results that an agreement was entered into in 1907. According to this agree

A klo ad vala. Nederlandsch Grossders in Fruit tegen A. Bosnak Amsterdam Rechtbank, 7 Juni 1910.

Ide la tía sau Les Codes Suedots de 1734 (elv ů, pênal, commercial suivis des lois postérieures Jebakken gebat wayu à ce jOLLE Pula, 1800

ment the state became the owner of half the shares in the company that now owns the mines of Gellivare and Kiirunavaara, and also became sole owner of certain other mining fields (Mertainen, Ekstromsberg and others), and in return for this undertook to carry 75 million tons of ore from Kiirunavaara and 19 million tons from Gellivare at a certain freight during a period of 25 years, besides which certain other regulations for the benefit of the company were made. These quantities have by a later agreement, in connection with the acquisition of the Svappavaara ore field by the state, been somewhat increased. It was considered also to involve certain benefits for the state to become a share-holder in a limited company, but on entering into the contract it was also decided that the state at the end of 25 years shall be entitled on certain conditions to take over the entire number of shares. The agreement may with every reason be said to have been advantageous for both parties, and forms a good example of cooperation between the state and the individual.1

The chief provisions of the agreement of 1907, stated in more detail, were as follows: (1) The State assumes the possession and use of all the iron ore deposits of Lapland, except in the Kiirunavaara and Gellivare districts, and receives from the present holders without compensation the ore deposits in certain other localities on the condition that no ore produced therefrom shall be exported. (2) The Luosavaara-Kiirunavaara Co. receives, in addition to its present possessions, the right to exploit all State iron-ore lands in the Kiirunavaara and Gellivare districts. (3) The capital stock of the said company is fixed at 80,000,000 kroner, one-half of which shall consist of preference shares to be given to the State; the State is also given the option to purchase the other half at the end of 25 years (1932), or eventually 10 years later (1942); if the State exercises its option of purchase the value is determined by an arbitration board on the basis of the average profit of the years 1920 to 1929, capitalized at 4 per cent. Limitations are placed on the alienation of the common stock by the present holders. (4) The State receives no dividends on its preferred stock before 1937, but instead certain royalties on every ton of ore produced, these royalties being higher for the later than for the earlier years. (5) The total quantity of ore to be produced. and exported by the said company in the 25-year period ending 1932 is fixed at 93,750,000 tons, with certain additional quantities for following years if the State does not then exercise its option of purchase; the exports permitted in the earlier years are limited, and a gradual increase to a fixed maximum is provided for; Bessemer ore can not be exported except so far as necessary to fulfill existing contracts. (6) The freight rates for the carriage of this iron ore on the State railways to places of exportation are likewise fixed in. the agreement. (7) The State also agrees that, in case an export tax is levied on ore, a drawback to the full amount shall be paid to the said company on the ore it exports."

1 A. Lindman. State Control of Iron Ore Mining in Sweden. Compte Rendu, XI Congrès Géologique International, Stockholm, 1910. p. 289.

* Stahl u. Eisen, Nov. 27, 1907, pp. 1736-1738.

Section 20. Norway.

The Penal Code of Norway in section 273 makes it an offense to spread false reports for the purpose of influencing the prices of merchandise, securities, or similar articles. Section 401 provides that whoever, for the purpose of obtaining an unrightful gain for himself or another, dissuades or seeks to hinder another from bidding at a public purchase or sale by means of deception or gifts is punishable with fine or imprisonment.

The civil law of Norway is apparently not codified. It may be noted in this connection, however, that a French commentator states with respect to all the Scandinavian countries, that the civil law admits freedom of contract, provided that agreements are not contrary to public order, to good morals, or to compulsory provisions of law.2

A "Law for the Acquisition of Waterfalls, Mines, and other Real Estate" was passed on September 18, 1909, which contains restrictions intended to prevent monopoly. With respect to water power concessions section 2 provides, in part, as follows:

If it is a company which seeks the concession conditions may be made to prevent that a majority of the parts or shares of the company shall come to belong to anyone who owns or uses other waterfalls in this kingdom or who owns a majority of shares in any other company which owns or uses waterfalls in this kingdom.

Further, section 2 provides, in part, as follows:

If the water power is used for the production of electrical energy the concessionaire must not, without the sanction of the proper government department, enter into any agreement for an artificial increase of prices of power in this kingdom.

Section 21. Denmark.

In the Penal Code of Denmark no provisions have been noted affecting the lawfulness of combinations."

The civil law of Denmark is apparently not codified. The principles of the civil law, however, are apparently the same as in Norway with respect to the validity of contracts.

.

The only case noted with respect to combinations in Denmark is following: A combination of Danish cement factories which had varod the prices of cement in Denmark made an agreement with ative society whereby the latter was to purchase its cement from the combination and was allowed a discount in Ano cooperative society sought to obtain supplies in another ! was sued for breach of agreement. Judgment was given

Lavacaabach, vom 22. Mai 1902; German translation by Rosenfeld and

ava, Paris, 10), p. 158

nagyolk og anden fast eiendom.

til you l0 Februar 1966, German translation by Bittl. Berlin,

for the plaintiff by the Court of Commerce of Copenhagen with damages. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (1914).1

Section 22. Russia.

The chief provisions of the law affecting industrial combinations in Russia are found in section 242 of the new Criminal Code, which received imperial sanction on March 22, 1903, namely:

SEC. 242. A merchant or manufacturer who increases the prices of victuals or other articles of prime necessity in an extraordinary degree in accord with other merchants or manufacturers dealing in the same articles shall be punished with imprisonment. If the culprit took advantage of the extreme need of the local population caused by the scarcity of these articles, he shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than three months.

A merchant or a manufacturer who increases the prices of victuals or other articles of prime necessity in an extraordinary degree to take advantage of the extreme need of the local population caused by the scarcity of such articles, is subject to the punishment fixed in paragraph one of this section.

The first and second paragraphs of this law are directed against combinations which do the thing prohibited, while the third is directed against individuals who commit the same act. The "extreme need" referred to in the above section of the Criminal Code, as shown by the official explanation of the motives of the legislator, means the already existing need, especially where caused by some calamity.2

Although the Criminal Code of 1903 covers a field of law similar to though not in all respects identical with that of the Penal Code of 1885, it does not appear that the former has been repealed, inasmuch as amendments have been frequently made therein subsequent to 1903. Hence the chief sections of the Penal Code of 1885 relating to combinations are likewise given here.3

SEC. 913. For a conspiracy, an understanding or other agreement among dealers for the purpose of increasing prices of articles of consumption the culprits shall be subject to punishments and fines provided by Section 1180 of the present Code.

SEC. 1180. In case of a conspiracy among merchants or manufacturers for the purpose of increasing not only the prices of victuals but also of other articles necessary for consumption or for an undue decreasing of the price with a view to impeding those who transport or supply these articles and thereby preventing also their further and larger supply the ringleaders of such unlawful agreements shall be subject to imprisonment for a term of from four to eight months; and the rest of them who only participated therein shall be punished, in accordance with the degree of their participation either by imprisonment of from three weeks to three months; or by a fine not exceeding two hundred roubles.

1 Faellesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeningen mod A/S Aalborg Portland Cement Fabrik; Hojesteretstidende, 58 Aarg (1914), p. 819.

• Tagantsev; Ugolovnoe Ulozhenie, 22 marta, 1903 goda (Criminal Code, Mar. 22, 1903). S. Petersburg, 1904, p. 395.

Tagantsev; Ulozhenie o nakazaniiakh ugolovnykh i ispravitelnykh 1885 goda (the Penal Code on Criminal and Corrective Punishments of 1885), 16th edition, revised and enlarged. S. Petersburg, 1912, pp. 592, 746.

If, however, such a conspiracy caused an actual scarcity of articles of prime necessity and this led to a disturbance of social peace, then the ringleaders shall be punished by the deprivation of certain special rights and privileges, in accordance with Section 50 of this Code, and by imprisonment for a term of from one year and four months to two years; and the rest of the culprits by imprisonment for a term of from four to eight months.

1

In section 121 of the Code for Safeguarding the National Food Supply 1 merchants or manufacturers are enjoined from committing acts similar to those prohibited in section 1180 of the Penal Code of 1885, and in section 127 of the same code the municipal authorities are authorized in certain cases to prevent arbitrary increases in the prices of prime necessities by prescribing definite prices for the same. The Civil Code, in section 1528, provides that a contract shall not be repugnant to the laws, to good morals, or to public order.❜

In March, 1903, the Petrikov (in Poland) Circuit Court refused to entertain a petition of 14 Polish glue manufacturers against one of their members who had violated the syndicate agreement. The court held that "no person was bound to respect an agreement which is repugnant to law, to good morals, or to social order." 3

A sugar refiners' syndicate was formed consisting of about 200 members for the apportionment of the output in the domestic market and for the compulsory export of surplus production under regulations of the syndicate and fines were provided for breaches of the agreement. A member of the syndicate violated certain provisions of the agreement relating to export and a fine was levied in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Action was brought by the seven managers of the syndicate in the Circuit Court of Kiev to collect the fine. The court held that the bill was defective with respect to the parties bringing the suit and that the agreement was defective in respect to the methods of enforcing the agreement, but the court did not pass upon the validity of the agreement itself. Appeal was taken on April 10, 1895, from this decision to the Court of Appeals of Kiev but was denied.1

However, on November 20, 1895, the first law regulating the output and exportation of sugar, which is described below, was enacted and this practically established a compulsory Government control of the sugar industry in substantially the manner aimed at by the syndicate.

According to a recent statement in the public press certain members of a coal cartel ("Produgol") who desired to withdraw there

1 Svod Zakonov (v. XIII); Ustav o obezpechenii narodnavo prodovolstviía; Dobrovolskii, Ed., St. Petersburg, 1913, Part 3, p. 670.

Svod Zakonov (v. 10, Pt. 1, Ed. 1900.).

Raffalovich; Promyshlennye sindikaty, St. Petersburg, 1904, p. 49.

Otchet po delu sindikata sakharozavodchikov s O. N. Baskakovol (Report on the case of the sugar refiners' syndicate versus Mrs. O. N. Baskakova), Kiev, 1895, pp. 5, 80-90, 91-110.

⚫ Kartell-Rundschau, April, 1914, p. 276.

« ForrigeFortsett »