DOCSLIB.ORG

Leniency for Subsequent Applicants 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leniency for Subsequent Applicants 2012 Leniency for Subsequent Applicants 2012 The OECD Competition Committee debated “Leniency for Subsequent Applicants” in October 2012. This document includes an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: an issues paper by the OECD Secretariat and written submissions from: Australia, Estonia, the European Union, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and BIAC, as well as a summary of the discussion. Competition authorities widely rely on leniency policies to detect, investigate and prosecute hard-core cartels. Jurisdictions that operate leniency programmes recognize the benefits of rewarding not only the first-in applicant who denounces the cartel but also subsequent applicants who provide useful corroboration or new evidence. Subsequent applicants can often supply essential co-operation for the successful prosecution of the full extent of a cartel and offer a cost-efficient way for gathering evidence. In order to obtain a leniency reward, subsequent applicants must fulfil a number of requirements, which generally mirror those for immunity applicants. These include qualification, co-operation and timing requirements, which vary in substance across jurisdictions. However, in the majority of jurisdictions, subsequent applicants are required to provide full and continuous co-operation throughout the procedure while ending their participation in the cartel and maintaining the fact of their co-operation confidential. Hard Core Cartels: Third Report on the Implementation of the 1998 Recommendation (2005) Cartels Sanctions against Individuals (2003) Fighting Hard Core Cartels: Harm, Effective Sanctions and Leniency Programmes (2002) Hard Core Cartels (2000) Recommendation of the Council concerning Effective Action against Hard Core Cartels (1998) Unclassified DAF/COMP(2012)25 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English, French DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE Unclassified DAF/COMP(2012)25 LENIENCY FOR SUBSEQUENT APPLICANTS English, French Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. DAF/COMP(2012)25 FOREWORD This document comprises proceedings in the original languages of a Roundtable on Leniency for Subsequent Applicants held by the Competition Committee (Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement) in October 2012. It is published under the responsibility of the Secretary General of the OECD to bring information on this topic to the attention of a wider audience. This compilation is one of a series of publications entitled "Competition Policy Roundtables". PRÉFACE Ce document rassemble la documentation dans la langue d'origine dans laquelle elle a été soumise, relative à la table ronde sur l’application des programmes de clémence aux demanderus suivants qui s'est tenue en octobre 2012 dans le cadre du Comité de la concurrence (Groupe de Travail No. 3 sur la coopération et l’application de la loi). Il est publié sous la responsabilité du Secrétaire général de l'OCDE, afin de porter à la connaissance d'un large public les éléments d'information qui ont été réunis à cette occasion. Cette compilation fait partie de la série intitulée "Les tables rondes sur la politique de la concurrence". Visit our Internet Site -- Consultez notre site Internet http://www.oecd.org/competition/ 2 DAF/COMP(2012)25 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 5 ISSUES PAPER .............................................................................................................................................. 9 CONTRIBUTIONS BY DELEGATIONS Australia ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Estonia ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 European Union ........................................................................................................................................ 29 France (version française) ........................................................................................................................ 35 France (English version) .......................................................................................................................... 47 Germany ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Hungary .................................................................................................................................................... 65 Italy........................................................................................................................................................... 71 Japan ......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Korea ........................................................................................................................................................ 85 Latvia ........................................................................................................................................................ 91 Lithuania ................................................................................................................................................... 95 Mexico .................................................................................................................................................... 101 Poland ..................................................................................................................................................... 105 Romania ................................................................................................................................................. 113 Russian Federation ................................................................................................................................. 121 South Africa ........................................................................................................................................... 129 Spain ....................................................................................................................................................... 133 Switzerland ............................................................................................................................................. 139 Chinese Taipei ........................................................................................................................................ 143 Ukraine ................................................................................................................................................... 149 United States .......................................................................................................................................... 151 BIAC ...................................................................................................................................................... 159 OTHER REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 165 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 167 *** SYNTHÈSE ................................................................................................................................................. 179 DOCUMENT DE RÉFLEXION ................................................................................................................. 183 COMPTE RENDU DE LA DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 195 3 DAF/COMP(2012)25 4 DAF/COMP(2012)25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By the Secretariat From the background paper, the country contributions and the discussion at the roundtable on leniency for subsequent applicants, the following points emerge: (1) Competition authorities widely rely on leniency policies to detect, investigate and prosecute hard-core cartels. Jurisdictions that operate leniency programmes recognize the benefits of rewarding not only the first-in applicant who denounces the cartel but also subsequent applicants who provide useful corroboration or new evidence. Subsequent applicants can often supply essential co-operation for the successful prosecution of the full extent of a cartel and offer a cost- efficient way for gathering evidence. Leniency programmes have proven very successful for competition authorities in detecting, investigating and prosecuting hard-core cartels and, as a result, have been adopted in a large number of jurisdictions around the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award?
    When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award? June 01, 2021 Timeline to Confirm Arbitration Award BST Ohio Corp. v. Wolgang, 2021-Ohio-1785 In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. The Bullet Point: In this matter, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that trial courts need not wait three months before confirming an arbitration award. In making this determination, the Court analyzed the interplay of the timing requirements of R.C. 2711.09 and 2711.13. Under R.C. 2711.09, a party may file an application to confirm an arbitration award with a court of common pleas within one year after the award is issued. Thereafter, the court must grant an order and issue judgment confirming said award unless it has been vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.11. As compared to said one-year limit to confirm, R.C. 2711.13 mandates that a party seeking to alter the results of arbitration must move to vacate, modify, or correct the award within three months of the award being issued. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (the “trial court”) to confirm the arbitration award the same day it was issued. The following day, the defendant filed a petition to vacate or correct the award in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Proceedings of the Meetings of the Board Of
    OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PORTAGE COUNTY, WISCONSIN January 18, 2005 February 15, 2005 March 15, 2005 April 19, 2005 May 17, 2005 June 29, 2005 July 19, 2005 August 16,2005 September 21,2005 October 18, 2005 November 8, 2005 December 20, 2005 O. Philip Idsvoog, Chair Richard Purcell, First Vice-Chair Dwight Stevens, Second Vice-Chair Roger Wrycza, County Clerk ATTACHED IS THE PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD PROCEEDINGS FOR 2005 WHICH INCLUDE MINUTES AND RESOLUTIONS ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE LISTED FOR RESOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION TITLE JANUARY 18, 2005 77-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, CRUEGER PROPERTY 78-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, TURNER PROPERTY 79-2004-2006 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NEW POSITION REQUEST FOR 2005-NON TAX LEVY FUNDED-PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNER (ADDITIONAL 20 HOURS/WEEK) 80-2004-2006 DIRECT LEGISLATION REFERENDUM ON CREATING THE OFFICE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE 81-2004-2006 ADVISORY REFERENDUM QUESTIONS DEALING WITH FULL STATE FUNDING FOR MANDATED STATE PROGRAMS REQUESTED BY WISCONSIN COUNTIES ASSOCIATION 82-2004-2006 SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW AMBULANCE SERVICE AMENDED AGREEMENT ISSUES 83-2004-2006 MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THE FUTURE DIRECTION TECHNICAL FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF PORTAGE COUNTY AMENDMENT GOVERNMENT 84-2004-2006 FINAL RESOLUTION FEBRUARY 15, 2005 85-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, WANTA PROPERTY 86-2004-2006 AUTHORIZING, APPROVING AND RATIFYING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDING GROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Final Resolution and Order Vs
    COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO PUERTO RICO ENERGY COMMISSION MARC BEJARANO CASE NO.: CEPR-RV-2017-0004 PETITIONER SUBJECT: FinAl Resolution And Order vs. AUTORIDAD DE ENERGÍA ELÉCTRICA DE PUERTO RICO RESPONDENT FINAL RESOLUTION AND ORDER I. Brief ProcedurAl BAckground On February 27, 2017, Marc Bejarano (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Bejarano”) filed a petition for bill review before the Puerto Energy Commission (“Commission”) pursuAnt to Article 6.27 of Act 57-20141 and Regulation 8863.2 Mr. Bejarano’s petition relates to a past due charge included in A bill dated October 28, 2016 issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) to Ms. Wendy CArroll PArker. On MArch 17, 2017, PREPA AppeAred before the Commission And requested an extension until April 10, 2017 to reply to Mr. BejArAno’s petition. The Commission grAnted PREPA’s request on MArch 20, 2017. On April 4, 2017, Mr. BejArAno filed A Motion requesting thAt the heAring in this case be conducted in the English language. The Commission grAnted the Petitioner’s request on April 5, 2017, pursuant to Section 1.10 of Regulation 8543.3 On April 10, 2017, PREPA filed A motion requesting the dismissAl of Mr. BejArAno’s petition. On April 19, 2017, the Commission held A hearing to Address: (1) whether it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute of the past due charges contested by the Petitioner; (2) whether there Are grounds to consider the present cAse As A complAint rAther thAn A petition for bill review, given PREPA having allegedly transferred the past due balance to the 1 The Puerto Rico Energy TrAnsformAtion And RELIEF Act, As Amended.
    [Show full text]
  • The Omega Man Or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2020 The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law Spencer Weber Waller Loyola University Chicago, School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons Recommended Citation Spencer Weber Waller, The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law, 52 CONN. L. REV. 123 (2020). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 52 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 1 Article The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law SPENCER WEBER WALLER There is a classic sciencefiction novel andfilm that presenta metaphorfor the isolation of United States antitrust law in the current global context. Richard Mathiesson 's 1954 classic science fiction novel, I am Legend, and the later 1971 film released under the name of The Omega Man starring Charleton Heston, both deal with the fate of Robert Neville, a survivor of a world-wide pandemic who believes he is the last man on Earth. While I am Legend and The Omega Man are obviously works offantasy, it nonetheless has resonancefor contemporaryantitrust debate and discourse. United States antitrust law and policy diverges significantly from the rest of the global antitrust community in important areas of scope, philosophy, doctrine, procedure, remedies, and institutions.Much of this divergence in world view is the product of history and path dependence that is largely unique to the United States experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgender Woman 'Raped 2,000 Times' in All-Male Prison
    A transgender woman was 'raped 2,000 times' in all-male prison Transgender woman 'raped 2,000 times' in all-male prison 'It was hell on earth, it was as if I died and this was my punishment' Will Worley@willrworley Saturday 17 August 2019 09:16 A transgender woman has spoken of the "hell on earth" she suffered after being raped and abused more than 2,000 times in an all-male prison. The woman, known only by her pseudonym, Mary, was imprisoned for four years after stealing a car. She said the abuse began as soon as she entered Brisbane’s notorious Boggo Road Gaol and that her experience was so horrific that she would “rather die than go to prison ever again”. “You are basically set upon with conversations about being protected in return for sex,” Mary told news.com.au. “They are either trying to manipulate you or threaten you into some sort of sexual contact and then, once you perform the requested threat of sex, you are then an easy target as others want their share of sex with you, which is more like rape than consensual sex. “It makes you feel sick but you have no way of defending yourself.” Mary was transferred a number of times, but said Boggo Road was the most violent - and where she suffered the most abuse. After a failed escape, Mary was designated as ‘high-risk’, meaning she had to serve her sentence as a maximum security prisoner alongside the most violent inmates. “I was flogged and bashed to the point where I knew I had to do it in order to survive, but survival was basically for other prisoners’ pleasure,” she said.
    [Show full text]
  • 26 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition)
    § 301.6511(a)–1 26 CFR Ch. I (4–1–20 Edition) otherwise expire with respect to Corporation (5) Computation of 60-day period when P’s 2007 return), a court proceeding is last day of assessment period falls on a brought to enforce the designated summons weekend or holiday. For purposes of issued to Corporation P. On June 6, 2011, the paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, in court orders Corporation P to comply with the designated summons. Corporation P does determining whether a designated sum- not appeal the court’s order. On September 6, mons has been issued at least 60 days 2011, agents for Corporation P deliver mate- before the date on which the period of rial that they state are the records requested limitations on assessment prescribed in by the designated summons. On October 13, section 6501 expires, the provisions of 2011, a final resolution to Corporation P’s re- section 7503 apply when the last day of sponse to the designated summons occurs the assessment period falls on a Satur- when it is determined that Corporation P day, Sunday, or legal holiday. has fully complied with the court’s order. (e) Effective/applicability date. This The suspension period applicable with re- spect to the designated summons issued to section is applicable on July 31, 2009. Corporation P consists of the judicial en- [T.D. 9455, 74 FR 38097, July 31, 2009] forcement period (March 3, 2011, through Oc- tober 13, 2011) and an additional 120-day pe- LIMITATIONS ON CREDIT OR REFUND riod under section 6503(j)(1)(B), because the court required Corporation P to comply with § 301.6511(a)–1 Period of limitation on the designated summons.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 June 14 Regular Meeting
    Regular Meeting June 14, 2018 Northport-East Northport Union Free School District Regular Meeting - William J. Brosnan School (Thursday, June 14, 2018) Generated by Beth M Nystrom on Friday, June 15, 2018 Members present Donna McNaughton, Allison C Noonan, Andrew Rapiejko, David Stein, Tammie Topel Members absent David Badanes, Lori McCue Also present Mr. Robert Banzer, Superintendent of Schools Ms. Irene McLaughlin, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Mr. Matthew Nelson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Services, Technology and Assessment Dr. Dana Boshnack, Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning Public Attendance: Approximately 120 people 1. CALL TO ORDER – President Rapiejko called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. IF NECESSARY, THE CHAIR MAY ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION - Note: It is anticipated that the Board will meet in public at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Conference Room to act upon a resolution, upon majority vote, to immediately convene into Executive Session to discuss matters pertaining to current litigation and matters pertaining to the employment history of particular persons. Action: 2.01 Motion to convene into Executive Session to discuss matters pertaining to the employment history of particular persons, and matters pertaining to contract negotiations. Motion by David Stein, second by Donna McNaughton. Final Resolution: Motion passes Yes: Donna McNaughton, Allison C Noonan, Andrew Rapiejko, David Stein, Tammie Topel At 7:09 p.m. the Board reconvened in public session in the cafeteria at the William J. Brosnan School. 3. Mr. Rapiejko led those present in the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE; and 4. Pointed out the EMERGENCY EXITS 5.
    [Show full text]
  • IV. Main Achievements
    IV. Main achievements Introduction The 2015 Annual Report contained a State by State overview of main achievements since the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 in 1998 (earlier achievements were summarised in the Court’s Annual Report of that year celebrating the Court’s 40th anniversary). The 2016 Annual Report intends to provide additional insights into problems which have more recently come before the Committee of Ministers and led to more important reforms. The present overview thus focuses on reforms reported since the beginning of the Interlaken process in 2010. The individual measures adopted in order to erase the consequences of the violations for the individual applicants are not presented in this overview. In line with the approach in the overview of activities in 2016 (Appendix 5 – Thematic Overview) and that in the country fact sheets (Appendix 9), the presentation is thematic, indicating with respect to each theme the States and cases concerned. In order to provide as up-to-date information as possible, reforms reported are not limited to those accepted in final resolutions in cases closed, but also includes more important progress made in pending cases; references are here to the presentation of the status of execution in HUDOC-EXEC. Nota Bene: Cases cited under a specific theme do not necessarily raise all the issues mentioned in the heading. Similarly, the mention of the closure of supervision of a specific case does not necessarily mean that all problems in the area concerned have been solved. In a number of instances, the Committee of Ministers recognised major progress with respect to the solution of certain aspects of a larger problem by allowing a closure of certain cases of a group related to the aspects solved (“partial closure”).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 7 Boarddocs® Pro 5/22/2012
    BoardDocs® Pro Page 1 of 7 ADOPTED MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE IMPERIAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Wednesday, November 16, 2011 Location Administration Board Room, Building 10 380 East Aten Road Imperial, CA 92251 1. INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC Board President Medina called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 2. CALL TO ORDER Procedural: 2.1 Roll Call by Secretary Members Present: Rudy Cardenas, Romualdo Medina, Karla Sigmond, Steve Taylor, Louis Wong Members Absent: Jerry Hart Norma Sierra Galindo ASG President Bermudez Procedural: 2.2 Pledge of Allegiance Trustee Wong led the pledge of allegiance. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Discussion: 3.1 Redistricting Public Hearing Spokesperson for the Redistricting Committee Victor Carrillo spoke and provided a synopsis of the redistricting maps. He announced the committee members and stated the committee started meeting in July 2011 and since have had seven workshops with English and Spanish documentation and translators. He described the differences of both scenarios and provided comments that were written from workshop attendees. Dolinka Group representative Larry Hershaw spoke and reviewed the differences of both scenarios. Nadia Bermudez stated the purpose of the public hearings that will take place regarding the redistricting. Professor Emerita Ortega asked how the non voting population is counted with the one person, one vote method. Larry Hershaw answered that it was based on total population regardless of eligibility. Erasmo Gonzalez spoke and stated he had one concern which was that he did not like the way the cities were split and the prisons were counted. He is concerned regarding the representation regarding the smaller cities and stated he would favor option B-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
    Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 6th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2012 COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 6th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers 2012 French edition: Surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et décisions de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. 6e Rapport annuel du Comité des Ministres – 2012 ATTENTION: en regénérant la table des matières, manuellement: Table of contents - voir “d”, p. 6, en mauvaise police. I. Foreword by the 2012 Chairs of the “Human Rights” meetings .................... 9 - remettre “style de caractère” sur le titre II. Remarks by the Director General of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law ..................................................................... 11 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 Statistics – positive developments but workload increase ..................................... 11 All requests concerning the reproduction or translation of all or part of this document should be addressed to the Directorate of Communication (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Recent developments and trends .............................................................................. 13 or [email protected]). All other correspondence concerning this document should be Dialogue and peer pressure: improving the supervision
    [Show full text]
  • Agencies Finalize New Structure for Resolution Planning
    ALERT MEMORANDUM October 18, 2019 Agencies Finalize New Structure for Resolution Planning: More Focused & Less Frequent — The Federal Reserve and the FDIC approved a final resolution planning rule (the “Final Rule”) significantly revising the original rule adopted in 2011.1 The Final Rule revamps the 2011 requirements by aligning the timing and certain requirements for resolution planning with the filer’s categorization under the Federal Reserve’s October 10th final tailoring rule. Most significantly, the Final Rule allows all filers to submit more targeted or reduced resolution plans, rather than full plans, in their next submission, generally streamlines content requirements for many filers, and creates new waiver and related procedures that could permit further tailoring of requirements based on the potential systemic significance of different filers. The Final Rule largely adopts the April proposal, but provides important clarifications and procedural improvements. The most significant changes from the proposal are 1) the shift from full to targeted plans for the next submissions and 2) new deadlines and procedures to request waivers or to de-identify critical operations. First, the Agencies confirmed that all firms in Categories I, II, and III will submit targeted plans, rather than full plans, by July 1, 2021.2 Category IV firms must submit reduced plans by July 1, 2022. Second, while the Final Rule did not specify additional substantive tailoring of resolution plan content, the Final Rule clarified the process for seeking waivers of certain content elements and/or de-identification of critical operations. These requests must be filed 18 months before the next due date of the next full resolution plan, and if no decision to grant the requests is provided by 12 months before that due date, the request will be deemed denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Juvenile Justice: a Summary and Analysis Second Edition
    Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Distribution of this reproduction without consent is not permitted. Institute of Judicial Administration American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Standards Project Standards for Juvenile Justice: A Summary and Analysis Second Edition Barbara Danziger Flicker BALLINGER PUBLISHING COMPANY Cambridge, Massachusetts A Subsidiary of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. ***Blank Pages Have Been Removed From This Copy*** Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Distribution of this reproduction without consent is not permitted. This document was prepared for the Juvenile Justice Standards Project of the Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association. The project is supported by grants from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the American Bar Endowment, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Vincent Astor Foundation, and the Herman Goldman Foundation. The views expressed in this draft do not represent positions taken by the sponsoring organizations or the funding sources. Votes on the standards were unanimous in most but not all cases. Serious objections have been noted in formal dissents printed in the volumes concerned. This book is printed on recycled paper. Copyright O 1982, Ballinger Publishing Company Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Distribution of this reproduction without consent is not permitted. IJA-ABA JOINT COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS Hon. Irving R. Kaufman, Chairman Orison Marden, Co-Chairman 1974-1975 Hon. Tom C. Clark, Chairman for ABA Liaison Delmar Karlen, Vice-Chairman 1974-1975 Bryce A. Baggett Gisela Konopka Jorge L. Batista Robert W. Meserve Eli M. Bower Aryeh Neier Allen F. Breed Wilfred W. Nuernberger Leroy D. Clark Justine Wise Polier James Comer Cecil G.
    [Show full text]