10. Notes that while multilateral cooperation is not fully operational the Council and the Commission should promote this type of bilateral agreement; encourages the Commission to explore the possibility of opening similar negotiations with the countries with whom a first-generation agreement already exists, as well as with other important international actors and emerging economies such as China or India, in the case where a sufficient degree of similarity between the parties to the agreement as regards their substantive competition rules, investigative powers and applicable sanctions is present; supports, with regard to China, stepping up cooperation further on the basis of the EU-China Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation i ...[+++]n the area of anti-monopoly law of 20 September 2012, and calls for the inclusion of this issue in the negotiations on the bilateral investment treaty so as to protect better the rights of EU companies; stresses that a strategy to achieve convergence in global antitrust enforcement should provide for the development of effective means to ensure that competition law in third countries is not used to disguise industrial policy objectives;

31. Welcomes the Commission's continued commitment to the International Competition Network, particularly as regards its work undertaken in assisting China in the development of its draft antitrust law;

31. Welcomes the Commission's continued commitment to the International Competition Network, particularly as regards its work undertaken in assisting China in the development of its draft antitrust law;

28. Welcomes the Commission's continued commitment to the International Competition network, particularly as regards the work undertaken in assisting China in the development of its draft antitrust law;

In reply to my question No H-0522/02 concerning the draft law on electric, electro-mechanical and electronic games, which was to be debated in the Greek Parliament, the Commission said that it could not comment at that particular time.

There is a scandal because the economy of the legislation concerning taxable Canadian property-it sounds technical, but that is the objective-the economy of the legislation said this concept, which allowed the transfer of some public corporation assets elsewhere in the world, free of tax, was to be applied only to foreign residents, not to Canadian residents.