ANTITRUST ALERT
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
European Court of Justice
Subscribe to European Court of Justice's Posts

Game-Changing Ruling Looms in Google Antitrust Battle

by , and | Sep 11, 2024 | ,

On 5 September 2024, Advocate General (AG) Laila Medina rendered her opinion in Alphabet and Others, suggesting that the European Court of Justice not apply the strict Bronner criteria when assessing Google’s refusal to grant access to its Android Auto platform for an app that provides a set of features for charging electric vehicles.

Instead, AG Medina concluded that a dominant company that owns a platform and excludes, obstructs, or delays access of an app developed by a third-party infringes Article 102 TFEU, provided that such behaviour gives rise to anticompetitive effects to the detriment of consumers and cannot be objectively justified.

Importantly, AG Medina broke new legal ground in that she believes that a refusal to grant access to a platform cannot be objectively justified by the “mere fact that the dominant undertaking must develop a software template taking into account the specific needs of the operator requesting access.” In other words, simply granting access to a platform is not enough, certain changes to facilitate access have to be undertaken.

Read more here.



read more

Illumina/GRAIL: European Court of Justice Annuls the Commission’s Approach

by , , and | Sep 3, 2024 | , ,

In a spectacular turn, on September 3, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the European Commission’s decision to review the acquisition of Grail by Illumina. The Commission had previously asserted its authority to examine the merger under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, despite the transaction not meeting the EU or national turnover thresholds for review.

This ruling is significant because it challenges the Commission’s ability to review transactions that do not meet the relevant EU or national thresholds but are referred by EU Member States. This could impact how future mergers are reviewed within the EU, as the Commission is likely to find alternative ways to review transactions that do not meet the relevant EU or national thresholds.

Read more here.



read more

Antitrust M&A Snapshot | Q1 2023

by , , , , and | Apr 20, 2023 | , , , , ,

Topics covered in this edition:

  • Christine Wilson Resigns as FTC Commissioner
  • FTC/Department of Justice Horizontal Merger Guidelines Delayed
  • Agencies Maintain Focus on Private Equity, Especially in Healthcare
  • Continuing a Trend: FTC Loses Challenge to Meta’s Acquisition of Within
  • Agencies Continue to Challenge Transactions Outright Rather than Negotiate Settlements
  • New Regulatory Burden: The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation Enters into Force
  • A New Route for Complainants: ECJ Towercast Ruling Confirms Non-Notifiable Acquisition Can Be Abuse of Dominant Position
  • CMA’s New Leadership Team Focuses on Digitalisation and Supply Chain Issues Impacting Consumers

Access the full issue.



read more

THE LATEST: European Court of Justice Clarifies Application of European Union Merger Control Rules to Joint Ventures

by | Sep 7, 2017 | , , ,

On 7 September 2017, the European Court of Justice issued a decision (Decision) on the interpretation of the European Union Merger Regulation (EUMR). The Decision clarifies the conditions under which the EUMR applies to the setting-up of joint venture companies.

WHAT HAPPENED:
  • 3(4) of the EUMR stipulates that the “creation” of joint ventures requires a notification only if the joint venture “performs the functions of an autonomous economic entity” (Full-Function JV).
  • Companies with management dedicated to its day-to-day operations, as well as access to sufficient resources including staff, finance and assets usually qualify as Full-Function JV. If the joint venture has only one specific function for the parent companies (e.g. supplying input products or services), and has no or only very limited own resources, it is unlikely to be considered a Full-Function JV.
  • There has been considerable uncertainty whether Art. 3(4) EUMR applies only to the creation of a new company (greenfield operation), or whether it also applies if joint control is acquired over an existing company.
  • The European Commission significantly contributed to this uncertainty by repeatedly taking inconsistent and contradictory positions. In a fairly unusually move, the ECJ’s Advocate General chastised the European Commission, calling it “extremely regrettable” that the European Commission did not “commit to a clear and uniform approach and then apply it consistently”.
  • The ECJ’s Decision comes at the request of an Austrian court. The Austrian court had to decide whether the acquisition of joint control over a small asphalt plant–which does not qualify as Full-Function JV–requires notification and clearance under the EUMR by the European Commission.
  • The ECJ has now held that the change of sole control to joint control only requires a notification under the EUMR if the newly created joint venture qualifies as a Full-Function JV.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
  • The Decision brings much-awaited clarity to a key issue of European Union merger control.
  • If two or more companies create a joint venture company, it will be subject to the EUMR only if it qualifies as s Full-Function JV. This applies both to greenfield operations, where a new company is created, and the change from sole to joint control over an existing company. Whether a notification to the European Commission is actually required, will depend on whether the jurisdictional turnover thresholds under the EUMR are met.
  • The creation of joint ventures which do not qualify as Full-Function JV does not require notification to and clearance by the European Commission. However, these joint ventures may still be subject to merger control in one or several EU Member States.
  • The European Commission required and accepted in the past the notification of transactions which involved the creation of joint ventures not qualifying as Full-Function JV. Following today’s decision by the ECJ, it appears that the European Commission did not have jurisdiction. An interesting question to be explored in the coming weeks and months is therefore whether the Decision [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Ad hoc Local Leniency Application Makes the Difference: The Italian Council of State Upholds the Administrative Court of Lazio Judgment on the Alleged International Road Freight Cartel

by | Oct 26, 2016 | , ,

On 20 October 2016, the Italian Council of State (the “Council of State”) upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court of Lazio (“TAR”) on the cartel in the sector of international road freight forwarding to and from Italy and confirmed the ranking applied in granting the reduction of the fine. According to the Council of State, in order to access the national leniency program, a company should provide the Authority with all necessary information and elements for the uncovering of the infringement, and should take into account that all the relevant information and elements provided to other authorities, in the context of other leniency application, will not be considered by the Authority. Therefore, companies should be careful and verify that each leniency application submitted is prepared ad hoc for each jurisdiction and is not capable of raising doubts regarding its scope. (more…)



read more

The EU Court of Justice Brings to an End Odile Jacob’s Fight Against Lagardère’s Purchase of Vivendi Universal Publishing

by | Jan 29, 2016 | , ,

By its judgment of 28 January 2016 (C-514/14 P, Editions Odile Jacob SAS v Commission), the European Court of Justice (Court) upheld the General Court of the European Union’s (GCEU) ruling with respect to each of the grounds raised by Editions Odile Jacob (Odile Jacob) thereby dismissing Odile Jacob’s appeal.

The case concerned the sale, in 2002, of Vivendi Universal’s subsidiary Vivendi Universal Publishing (VUP) to the Lagardère Group (Lagardère).

The European Commission (Commission) authorized the concentration in 2004, subject to undertakings by Lagardère. Specifically, Lagardère undertook to divest a significant amount of VUP assets. Lagardère thus approached several undertakings potentially interested in purchasing those assets. Odile Jacob was one of the undertakings that expressed an interest in the acquisition of the divested assets. However, Lagardère accepted the purchase offer made by Wendel Investissement (Wendel) whom the Commission approved as a suitable purchaser. Odile Jacob challenged the Commission’s decision authorizing the concentration and the decision approving Wendel as a suitable purchaser. In 2010, the GCEU confirmed the decision authorizing the concentration but annulled the decision approving Wendel as a suitable purchaser on the ground that it had been adopted on the basis of a report drawn up by a trustee that was not deemed independent. This judgment was upheld by the Court in 2012.

Following the GCEU’s judgment, Lagardère made a further request to the Commission for the approval of Wendel by proposing a new trustee who was subsequently approved by the Commission, in 2011, with effect from 2004. Odile Jacob brought another action for annulment of this approval decision which was dismissed by the GCEU by judgment of 5 September 2014 (T-471/11).

In its judgment of 28 January 2016, the Court upheld the September 2014 judgment of the GCEU.

First, the Court considered that the GCEU correctly ruled that, in order to give full effect to the judgments of 2010, the Commission was only required to approve a new trustee responsible for drawing up a new report evaluating Wendel’s candidature and to assess this candidature on the basis of this new report. In this respect, the Court found that the Commission neither had to revoke the decision authorizing the concentration nor to repeat the whole procedure from the date on which Lagardère appointed the first trustee.

Second, the Court ruled that the GCEU had not erred in law by declaring that the 2011 Commission decision, which approved again Wendel as an acquirer of VUP’s assets, could be retroactive. Indeed, the Court found that the Commission could adopt retroactive decisions where this is required by the intended aim and where the principle of protection of the legitimate expectations of the parties is properly observed. Here, the Court confirmed that these conditions had been met in the case: the new retroactive approval decision was intended inter alia to fill the legal vacuum created by the annulment of the first approval decision. In that regard, the Court found that Odile Jacob failed to demonstrate that there were no grounds that could justify [...]

Continue Reading



read more

EU’s Top Court Rules Cartel Victims Can Claim Damages From Cartelists Despite No Contractual Link

by | Jun 10, 2014 | ,

by Martina Maier, Philipp Werner and David Henry

In a landmark ruling, the EU’s top court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Kone and Others C-557/12 of 5 June 2014, has held that, where a cartel causes competing companies to increase their prices, the members of the cartel may be held liable for losses incurred by victims of those price increases.

Please click here to read the full article.



read more

EU National Courts May Have to Order Recovery of State Aid Before European Commission Makes Final Decision

by | Nov 26, 2013 | ,

The European Court of Justice decided on 21 November 2013 that EU national courts must assume that a measure qualifies as State aid, if the European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation into that measure.

This judgment is relevant to all cases in which the disputed measure was already granted, or is planned to be granted, and the European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation but not yet made a final decision on whether or not the measures qualify as State aid.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided on 21 November 2013 in Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH (C-284/12) on the obligations placed on national courts in EU Member States that have been asked by a third party to order the recovery of State aid that was granted to a beneficiary without approval by the European Commission.

The ECJ stated that, even though the assessment carried out by the European Commission in its decision to open an in-depth investigation is preliminary in nature, the decision to open an investigation has legal effect and is therefore binding for national courts in that they must find that the measure qualifies as State aid. If the aid was granted without approval by the European Commission, the national court will have to order its recovery.

Background

EU Member States cannot implement measures that qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) until those measures have been approved by the European Commission (“the standstill obligation”, established in Article 107(3)(3) TFEU). The European Commission has exclusive competence to approve State aid.

National courts may, however, find an infringement of the standstill obligation and order the recovery of State aid that was granted without European Commission approval. Although national courts may not authorise State aid, they are permitted to decide whether or not a measure qualifies as State aid.

State aid investigations by the European Commission begin with a first phase, in which the European Commission requests information from the relevant EU Member State and gives the State the opportunity to give its views on the qualification of the relevant measures as State aid and grounds for their authorisation.

In complex cases, the European Commission generally opens an in-depth investigation. When making its decision to initiate an in-depth investigation, the European Commission has to provide an initial assessment of the measure and explain why it has come to the preliminary conclusion that the measure qualifies as State aid.

In the case at hand, the competitor of an alleged aid beneficiary approached a German court seeking recovery of alleged aid given to the beneficiary and suspension of its implementation. According to the appellant, the measure qualified as State aid, was granted without approval by the European Commission and was therefore in violation of the standstill obligation. The European Commission opened an in-depth State aid investigation into the relevant measures in 2006, but the final decision is still outstanding.

Question Referred by [...]

Continue Reading



read more

German Court Protects the Confidentiality of Leniency Submissions

by | Feb 14, 2012 | ,

by David Henry, Martina Maier and Philipp Werner

In the wake of the seminal European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in case C-360/09 – Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt, Amtsgericht Bonn (Bonn local court), in a decision rendered on 18 January 2012 (case 51 Gs 53/09), has refused to give a damages claimant access to leniency submissions held by the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO).  Although strongly welcomed by the FCO, the decision is a blow to potential damages claimants in Germany, especially as it is not open to appeal.

To read the full article, click here. 



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery