Weiter zum Inhalt

Die Suche erzielte 14 Treffer.

Illumina v Commission – Confirmation of the European Commission's Renewed Approach to Referrals under Article 22 EUMR (T-227/21 Illumina v Commission) Journal Artikel

Jussi Koivusalo, Emilia Rosenblad

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2022), Ausgabe 3, Seite 284 - 289

Case T-227/21 Illumina, Inc. v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 July 2022 The General Court held that the European Commission may accept a referral to investigate a concentration that is not subject to national merger control rules even when the referring Member State has introduced a merger control regime of its own. It also held that a concentration is 'made known' to a Member State pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) EUMR only when sufficient information enabling a preliminary assessment of the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of the same Article is actively submitted to it.

A New Era for European Merger Control: Journal Artikel

An Increasingly Fragmented and Uncertain Regulatory Landscape

Salomé Cisnal de Ugarte, Mélanie Perez, Ivan Pico

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 6 (2022), Ausgabe 1, Seite 17 - 23

The third decade of the 21st century promises to look very different for European merger control. After several very successful acquisitions by Big Tech companies, competition law enforcers are increasingly concerned that their merger control regimes might not capture transactions that may have anticompetitive effects in the long run. As a consequence, European regulators are taking various initiatives which make the merger control landscape increasingly fragmented and complex, ranging from the introduction of value-based jurisdictional thresholds and a new referral policy that can catch mergers post-closing, to ground breaking regulatory initiatives in the digital sphere, changes relating to the substantive assessment of mergers in dynamic markets and foreign direct investment and subsidies screenings. This results in decreasing legal certainty for companies engaging in cross-border M&A and increased transaction costs. Keywords: merger control, Digital Markets Act, referrals, Article 22 EUMR, foreign subsidies, dynamic competition

Marine Harvest v Commission: Separate Fines for a Double False Start (C-10/18 P Mowi ASA v European Commission) Journal Artikel

Georgia Tzifa, Marilena Nteve, Lukas Šimas

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Jahrgang 4 (2020), Ausgabe 3, Seite 223 - 230

Case C-10/18 P Mowi ASA v European Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 March 2020 The Court upholds the imposition of separate fines for an infringement of the notification and standstill obligations under EU merger control