Rachel Brandenburger, Thomas Janssens, Apr 19, 2007
In its Impala judgment last year, the Court of First Instance annulled a European Commission unconditional merger clearance decision for the first time. As a result, the Commission is having to carry out a new investigation into a transaction that closed over two years ago. In this judgment, the Court applied the three-limbed test for collective dominance from Airtours judgment. But this time it assessed strengthening, as opposed to creation, of collective dominance. Importantly, the Court made it clear that the Commission must base a clearance on equally solid grounds as a prohibition. We examine a number of the fundamental issues that the Impala judgment has raised. These have significance beyond the factual context of the case itself, both for the way the Commission must conduct its investigations and for the role of judicial review by the EC courts. We conclude by suggesting some changes in Court and Commission practices that would, we believe, strengthen the effectiveness of EC merger control.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Senator Warner Calls for Treasury Oversight on Big Tech Sanctions
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Industry Minister Targets Grocery Giants with Antitrust Changes
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
DOT Issues Provisional Ruling Ending Delta-Aeroméxico Partnership
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
US Targets China with Proposed Rules on Cloud Giants in AI Development
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Australia’s ACCC Finds Limited Evidence of Profiteering in Childcare Sector Despite Soaring Fees
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Rule(s) of Reason
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Evolving the Rule of Reason for Legacy Business Conduct
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Object Identity
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
In Praise of Rules-Based Antitrust
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Future of State AG Antitrust Enforcement and Federal-State Cooperation
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI