1 / 11

THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL. Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry 19 March 2008 David Lewis -Chairperson. MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS FROM 1 st APRIL 2008. David Lewis Marumo Moerane – Deputy Chairperson Norman Manoim Yasmin Carrim Urmila Bhoola Merle Holden

bbrochu
Download Presentation

THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry 19 March 2008 David Lewis -Chairperson

  2. MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS FROM 1st APRIL 2008 • David Lewis • Marumo Moerane – Deputy Chairperson • Norman Manoim • Yasmin Carrim • Urmila Bhoola • Merle Holden • Mbuyiseli Madlanga • Thandi Orleyn • Medi Mokuena • Lawrence Reyburn • Nicola Theron

  3. MANDATE Tribunal derives its mandate from its enabling legislation – the Competition Act (Act 89 of 1998) In respect of mergers, the Tribunal: • authorises or prohibits a large merger • adjudicates appeals from Competition Commission’s decision on intermediate mergers In respect of anti-competitive practices, the Tribunal: • adjudicates complaint referrals • adjudicates interim relief applications • hears appeals on exemptions

  4. CASES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 01 APR 2007 TO 29 FEBRUARY 2008

  5. STRATEGIC PLANNING • Quasi – judicial body and creature of statue • Limited to setting objectives that are directly expressed by or provided in the law • Precluded from setting pro-active objectives or embarking on focused interventions • Setting targets would pre–empt Tribunal’s decisions in a manner which would compromise natural justice principles underpinning adjudicative role • No control over number/type of cases brought before it • Caseload entirely determined by complaint referrals and notified mergers

  6. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES • Objectives divided into 3 major categories • Policy and legislation • Enforcement and compliance • Education and awareness • Activities and outputs identified for each category • Where possible performance indicators and targets assigned for each output

  7. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES • 7 Objectives set that enable Tribunal to operate within context of the Competition Act • Ensure timeous decisions of a high calibre • Compliance with relevant legislation • Encourage effective internal and external communication • Maintain good corporate image and reputation • Provide efficient, competent and speedy service to public • Inculcate proper value system • Fairness, objectivity and independence

  8. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT • Budget for 2008/2009 – R 18.12m • Income received via filing fees(33.6%) and government grant (54.7%) • Proposed change in merger thresholds and filing fees will mean Tribunal will rely more heavily on funding from dti • Tribunal may need to request an MTEF adjustment for 2009/2010 and larger grants going forwards

  9. FINANCIALMANAGEMENT Budget for 2008/2009 allocated as follows: • Capital – 2.33 % • Administration – 7.68% • Personnel – 54.57% • Training – 11.20% • Recruitment – 0.36% • Professional services – 20.16% • Appeal Court – 3.70%

  10. FINANCIALMANAGEMENT • 53.32% of personnel budget is allocated to salary and fees paid to 10 Tribunal members • Appeal court is included as a line item in its budget as the Tribunal is responsible for financing all aspects, except personnel expenses of the Appeal Court • Tribunal is reactive and cannot predict number of cases to be heard annually • Accurate budgeting is difficult as many line items are based on estimated number of cases • Large provision made for legal fees as Tribunal is periodically obliged to respond to litigation • As a result variances in actual expenditure as opposed to budgeted expenditure • 2006/2007 spent 83.62% of budget

  11. 5 year budget

More Related