“What I spend on my yearly subscription, equals to a day's billable hours for me not to mention time efficiency and peace of mind.”
Jai SternAccess all documents on Competition (EU)
Non-controlling minority shareholdings This Checklist identifies the jurisdictions worldwide where acquisitions of non‑controlling minority shareholdings must be notified, provided the other jurisdictional thresholds are satisfied. In this context, ‘non‑controlling minority shareholdings’ means any degree of influence falling short of what the EU Merger Regulation terms ‘decisive influence’—namely, the capacity to exercise a significant level of control over an undertaking’s strategic commercial behaviour. That influence can be exercised through a variety of routes, including share ownership, voting rights (in particular, veto rights), or contractual arrangements, and does not necessarily involve holding a majority shareholding...
More than 150 jurisdictions operate merger control, or regimes akin to it. Within these systems, competition regulators may prohibit a deal entirely, or approve it subject to remedies, whether agreed or imposed. This Checklist sets out practical points to bear in mind when managing filing obligations across multiple jurisdictions. For overviews of merger control rules in every jurisdiction, see MJ merger grid—jurisdiction and MJ merger grid—procedure. For distilled takeaways, consult Key learning points from MJ reviews—anomalies, absurdities and potential pitfalls. It also flags issues commonly seen in practice. Guidance is provided in those resources. What transactions fall within merger control rules? Relevant transactions Across most regimes, including the EU, merger control captures any deal that places formerly independent undertakings under common control. Control is often defined broadly. Acquisitions of control—sole v joint control Control can rest with a single party, or be shared with one or more others: sole control: a shareholder that acquires control can take strategic decisions for the target without...
Set out below are the key practical competition law considerations when preparing and submitting the Form CO to the European Commission (the Commission): Confirm eligibility for a Short Form CO to reduce disclosures. Build in time; a full Form demands extensive data, including Member State market shares. For turnover, use the Commission’s official ECB exchange rate and support the filing with economic analysis. If information is unavailable, explain why and estimate; if requests seem irrelevant, justify and obtain a waiver with the case team. Check accuracy; inaccuracies render the Form CO ineffective until the Commission is satisfied. Provide precise contact details for customers, competitors and suppliers, and include caveats for any assumptions. Allow time for authorisations and, where required, signature of the declaration by the relevant business person or in-house lawyers. Prepare required copies (one original, three paper, two CD or DVD) and translate supporting documents not in an EU official language. Review supporting documents for any “anti-competitive” language...
FORTHCOMING CHANGES : Several reforms are anticipated across the leasehold and enfranchisement sphere—see Practice Note: Property key future developments tracker for further details. This Flowchart is intended for use when a tenant pursues enfranchisement or seeks a lease extension of a house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967). It outlines the procedure from the service of a tenant’s notice of claim, incorporating a landlord’s notice in reply, through to making applications to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (or the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) in Wales) and/or the County Court, as appropriate, according to the issue in dispute...
This Flowchart helps you decide whether the Business & Property Courts (B&PCs) Disclosure Scheme (CPR PD 57AD) applies to your claim, or if disclosure is governed by CPR 31, CPR PD 31A and CPR PD 31B. It does not address the position on: transfer of proceedings from a non‑Disclosure Scheme scenario to a Disclosure Scheme one; and disclosure in appeals Relevant content referred to in this Flowchart: Disclosure Scheme—when and where it applies Disclosure—overview Business and Property Courts Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure and Less Complex Claims See also: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview...
ARCHIVED: This flowchart has been archived and is no longer supported. It summarises how the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010) and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 are applied within this flowchart overview...
Mergers The Commission cleared: Hartree Partners Holdings, LP’s acquisition of exclusive control of Touton S.A. (M.12189), following a phase I investigation—see further in Midday Express the establishment of a joint venture by EVH Grüne Energie – Beteiligung GmbH & Co. KG and HSBC Alternative Investments S.C.A. SICAV-RAIF (M.12240), following a phase I investigation—see further in Midday Express the setting up of a joint venture by RCL Cruises Ltd....
Competition policy Commission publishes report on enforcement of EU antitrust and merger control rules in the pharmaceutical sector between 2018–2022 The Commission has issued a report on competition enforcement—covering antitrust and merger control—in the pharmaceutical sector, outlining the activities undertaken by the Commission and national competition authorities during 2018 to 2022. It updates an earlier 2019 report that examined the period from 2009 to 2017. Alongside a broad overview of enforcement in pharmaceuticals, the report describes the sector’s key features that guide competition assessments and, through concrete and practical examples, clearly demonstrates how competition law action protected undertakings and consumers, including in the course of the Covid-19 crisis...
Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...
This tracker monitors current Court of Justice appeals concerning State aid (Articles 107–109 TFEU) and other aid recovery actions. For concluded matters, consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—closed cases tracker. Note—closed appeals are transferred from this page to the closed trackers within seven days of the final ruling. For the Commission’s recent State aid decisions, see EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals pending before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references before the Court of Justice touching on State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court Case C-306/26 P, LM v Commission — Appeal against the General Court’s order in Case T-261/25 declaring inadmissible an annulment action concerning parts of Commission decision SA.44944—Tax treatment of public casinos in Germany and SA.53552—Alleged guarantee for public casinos in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie). Latest development: Lodged—07/04/2026. Case C-505/24 P, Condor Flugdienst v Ryanair —...
CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...
CASE HUB See more, timeline, commentary and connected cases. Case facts European Commission merger inquiry under Article 14(1) EUMR into inaccurate or misleading information supplied by KKR during the Commission’s 2024 review of KKR’s acquisition of NetCo. Latest developments On 24 July 2025, the Commission opened its investigation. Parties KKR & Co. Inc (KKR): Headquartered in the US, KKR is a global investment firm providing alternative asset management alongside capital markets and insurance services. NetCo: Based in Italy, NetCo is a newly established company that comprises FiberCop—presently jointly controlled by KKR and TIM—as well as TIM’s primary and backbone fixed-line network...
This Precedent presentation has been created as a training resource that you can use to offer an overview to junior competition lawyers, non-competition lawyers, or commercial colleagues on the application of the EU Vertical Agreements Block Exemption 2022/720 (EU VBER) to distribution agreements...
Overview The EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) (Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) applies to concentrations with an EU dimension. If [ name of project/transaction ] falls within EUMR, it must be notified to the European Commission (the Commission) prior to completion. The transaction cannot be finalised until clearance has been granted. Accordingly, an assessment should be undertaken as soon as possible at the earliest opportunity to confirm whether [ project name/transaction ] possesses an ‘EU dimension’ for these purposes...
Overview Joint ventures cover a wide spectrum of commercial arrangements, from merger-style integrations to co-operation confined to particular functions such as production, distribution, or research and development (R&D). This questionnaire seeks sufficient detail about the joint venture’s activities to enable an initial assessment of whether it is a full-function joint venture for the purposes of the EU Merger Regulation (Council Regulation No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings). If it is a full-function venture with an EU dimension (meaning the turnover thresholds are satisfied), the joint venture must be notified to the European Commission (the Commission) and cannot proceed until the Commission has found it compatible with the internal market. If the joint venture is not full-function and operates as a partnership that is, to a large extent, dependent on its parent companies, the establishment of the joint venture does not require notification; however, the Commission may exercise control after the fact, in light of Article 10(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union...
State Aid: The Basics Guide The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills’ July 2015 guide, State Aid: The Basics Guide, explains that state aid arises wherever public resources are used to give organisations an edge over others, potentially distorting competition and harming consumers and businesses across the EU. The concept is deliberately wide, as an “advantage” can be delivered in many ways, for example: grants loans tax breaks the use or sale of a state asset free of charge or for less than market value Public authorities, including local authorities in England and Wales, are accountable for ensuring their policies and projects comply with these requirements. During the implementation period following Brexit, state aid rules continue to apply in the UK. The annex to the Department for Education’s November 2019 publication, Securing Developer Contributions for Education, notes that unlawful state aid can occur in relation to developer contributions towards education...