Competition law meaning

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...

To gauge concentration within a particular market, competition authorities often turn to the Herfindahl‑Hirschman Index (HHI) as a primary tool that supports and streamlines their assessment. Although the absolute HHI level provides an early signal of post‑merger competitive pressure, the movement in the HHI (the ‘delta’) functions as a practical proxy for the change in concentration directly attributable to the merger itself and its immediate effects. How to calculate the HHI The HHI is obtained by adding the squares of the individual market shares of all firms participating in the market, without omitting any active competitor...

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...

This Flowchart sets out the consumer cancellation rights that must be made available to consumers entering on-premises contracts, off-premises contracts and distance contracts for the supply of services Use this guide when a practitioner needs to verify which cancellation entitlements apply to consumers purchasing services in accordance with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/3134 (CCR 2013). Note 1—a consumer is an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside their trade, business, craft or profession. Note 2—certain sector-specific contracts are regulated separately, such as financial services contracts, rental contracts and package travel contracts, and are excluded in full from the CCR 2013. For more information, see Practice Note: Distance, doorstep and on-premises sales—Excluded contracts...

The National Security and Investment Act 2021 A deal may fall within the ambit of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSI Act 2021) and might require notification to the UK Government if it gives rise to potential national security issues. See further: The National Security and Investment Act 2021. This flowchart sets out a decision pathway to assess whether a transaction is captured by the NSI Act 2021. View or print a full-size PDF version...

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...

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...

Over the course of the past month, annual adjustments have been made to merger control thresholds in Canada, Italy and the Philippines, while Montenegro has revamped its regime, introducing swifter timetables and more adaptable filing provisions. Canada—thresholds remain the same in 2026 On 2 March 2026, the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) confirmed, after its yearly review, that Canadian merger notification thresholds will stay exactly as they are for 2026. The thresholds remain (in brief): size of transaction test: the target must be, or control, an operating business in Canada with more than CDN$93m (approximately €58.9m/US$66.6m) in Canadian assets (book value) or gross revenue produced by those assets from sales in, from or into Canada (ie domestic plus export sales), and size of parties test: all parties and their affiliates (in aggregate) must together hold over CDN$400m (approximately €253.4m/US$286.3m) in Canadian assets or gross revenues derived from sales in, from or into Canada (ie domestic sales, exports and imports) (this threshold is unchanged and...

1 General information Report date: [ Enter date ] Previous report date: [ Enter date ] Report submitted by: [ Enter name ] 2 Action points arising from last report Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] Action item: [ Enter action point ], Responsible person: [ Identify person responsible for this action point ], Status: [ Enter status ] 3 Executive summary This report covers the following items: 3.1 overview of business operations; 3.2 account of the operation of competition law compliance systems and controls;...

As offerings become more technologically advanced and include integrated systems and features, assessing whether tying or bundling might be seen as anti-competitive grows more complex. This checklist is designed to help you weigh key competition law considerations before linking or packaging products. Always seek advice from [ insert, eg the legal team ] where indicated below, and if you have any queries or concerns... 1 Products and market Evaluate whether the items proposed for a bundle or tie are genuinely separate products. Can the products being bundled or tied be treated as distinct offerings? Yes — consult [ insert, eg the legal team ], as bundling may adversely affect suppliers of stand‑alone products and thus harm competition No — [Insert comments] Do other organisations in the market use bundling and tying?...

Behaviour red flags are situations that should prompt you to probe further. Though they can be hard to spot, many scenarios can indicate the presence of anti-competitive conduct. This awareness tool highlights potential competition law warning signs, indicators, traits or behaviours to be especially alert to at all times. Even a single red flag may suggest anti-competitive conduct. 1 Cartel behaviour Any attempt to fix prices. Any attempt to engage in bid-rigging. ...

A post-termination restriction (or restrictive covenant) A post-termination restriction, also called a restrictive covenant, in an employment contract is unenforceable from the outset unless the limits it places are reasonable, having regard to the interests of both the parties and of the public...

For this Q&A, our review is confined to how lotteries, competitions and prize draws differ. Our analysis has focused specifically on distinguishing among these three mechanisms. Definitions The meaning of 'prize competition' Under the Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005), a ‘prize competition’ means any contest or arrangement in which a participant may secure a prize, so long as it does not fall within the statutory concept of gambling. The meaning of 'gambling' English law recognises three principal forms of gambling: betting, gaming and lotteries. While the statutory tests are intricate, they can be outlined in broad terms as follows: Betting involves making or accepting a wager on the result of a race, competition or other event or process, on the likelihood of something occurring or not occurring, or on whether a proposition is true or false (even where one party knows the facts). Although ‘bet’ is not expressly defined in legislation, case law commonly characterises it as risking something of value on...

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...