Sagem / Printrak [2008] IECompA m08035 (7 November 2008)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Posture
- Merger Notification / Phase 1 Determination
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The authority determined that the proposed acquisition would not substantially lessen competition in any market for goods or services in the State.
Court disposition
Cleared
Orders
- The proposed acquisition is approved without conditions.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sagem Sécurité S.A.
AcquirerPrintrak International Inc.
TargetMotorola, Inc. and its subsidiaries
Seller03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Notification / Phase 1 Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the proposed acquisition of sole control of Printrak International Inc. and certain assets of Motorola, Inc. and its subsidiaries by Sagem Sécurité S.A. would substantially lessen competition in the market for biometric identification solutions in Ireland.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The acquisition would not result in a substantial lessening of competition as the parties' activities are complementary and the market remains competitive.
- Respondent
- No objections or counter-arguments from third parties or the authority are recorded.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act 2002 (Ireland)
Assessment of mergers under Irish competition law focuses on whether the transaction would substantially lessen competition.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The authority determined that the proposed acquisition would not substantially lessen competition in any market for goods or services in the State.
Court disposition
Cleared
- The proposed acquisition is approved without conditions.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
Sagem / Printrak [2008] IECompA m08035 (7 November 2008) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Irish Competition Authority Decisions You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Competition Authority Decisions >> Sagem / Printrak [2008] IECompA m08035 (7 November 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/2008/m08035.html Cite as: [2008] IECompA m08035, [2008] IECompA m8035 [ New search ] [ Help ] Sagem / Printrak [2008] IECompA m08035 (7 November 2008) Page Attachment Determination M035 Sagen-Printrak_0.pdf (101.22 KB) (101.22 KB) Determination M035 Sagen-Printrak.pdf (101.22 KB) (101.22 KB) Transaction details The proposed acquisition of sole control of Printrak International, INC. and certain assets of Motorola, INC and it subsidiaries by Sagem S�curite S. A. Economic sector Media merger Biometric identification solutions for identifying an individual including the relevant products, maintenance and services associated with such solutions. No Notification date: Friday, November 7, 2008 Parties Involved Business activities The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland Sagem S�cur�te Sagem: main activity is the development of technologies involved in the advanced management of identity for forensic and Civil ID applications. Printrak International Inc. Printrak: designs and markets biometric identification solutions. Case Officer Assigned Contact Details Mr. Ibrahim Bah Tel:01-804 5425, email: ib@tca.ie The deadline for any third parties who wish to make submissions regarding the competition aspects of this merger is: Phase 1 Thursday, November 20, 2008 Current status Completed Preliminary investigation (Phase 1) Decision date: Friday, November 21, 2008 Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (Ireland) © BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/2008/m08035.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.