EU merger control

EU merger control

Notifiable concentration

If a transaction falls within the scope of the EU Mergers Regulation (EUMR), it will need to be notified to the European Commission and be cleared before the transaction can be completed. The Commission will investigate the transaction—if it has competition concerns, it can prohibit the transaction or accept remedies from the parties that address those concerns.

A transaction will fall within the EUMR and require notification to the Commission if:

•
it is a ‘concentration’
•
the transaction is permanent, and
•
it meets the financial thresholds set out in the EUMR

The EUMR defines a ‘concentration’ as follows:

•
where two independent businesses merge
•
the acquisition of control by one (or more) business over another, either
1. ◦
  one business gaining ‘sole control’ over the target business
2. ◦
  two or more businesses gaining ‘joint control’ over the target business
•
where there is a change of control in the acquired business, or
•
where a full-function joint venture is formed (see Practice Note: EU merger rules—joint ventures)

For further information on ‘concentration’ and the financial thresholds, see Practice Notes:

•
A

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest EU Law News

ESAs publish evaluation report on EU Securitisation Regulation

The Joint Committee of the three European Supervisory Authorities (the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority—ESAs)has published an evaluation report on the EU Securitisation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/2402—SECR). The report offers recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of Europe's securitisation framework, ensuring investor protection and financial stability. These recommendations will inform the European Commission’s review of the securitisation legislative framework, aiming to foster resilient and transparent securitisation markets in the EU.

Automated decision-making and DSARs: right to access means a right to explainability (CK v Magistrat Der Stadt Wiendun & Bradstreet Austria GMBH)

Information Law analysis: The Court of Justice provided several clarifications around the scope of data subject access requests (DSARs) in the context of automated decision-making. The court held the determining factor for whether information constitutes ‘meaningful information about the logic involved’ under Article 15(1)(h) of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) is whether the information enables the data subject to understand the logic involved in automated decision-making involving their personal data. The court also held disclosure by controllers should be underpinned by the principles of transparency, which requires information to be clear, accessible and intelligible, both in terms of content and form, from the perspective of data subjects. In the context of automated decision-making this doesn’t necessarily mean providing the exact algorithm, if it doesn’t help the data subject’s understanding of the ‘how’. The court confirmed DSARs do not mandate the disclosure of trade secrets, but this can only be decided by the relevant supervisory authority or competent court, after assessing all relevant information provided to them by a controller. The protection of trade secrets cannot be used as a blanket excuse by businesses to withhold certain information from individuals making a request under Article 15(1)(h) of the EU GDPR. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law LLP.

Commission proposes measures to support wine sector

The European Commission has proposed a series of measures to maintain the competitiveness and resilience of Europe's wine sector. The proposal includes targeted measures to manage production capacity, adapt to consumer preferences, and explore new market opportunities. These measures also aim to maintain the economic vitality of rural areas dependent on wine industry employment.

Court of Justice urged to uphold €60m Teva pay-for-delay fine

Law360, London: An adviser to the Court of Justice said on 27 March 2025 that it should uphold €60.5m in fines against Teva and its subsidiary Cephalon for an alleged conspiracy to keep a generic version of Provigil off the shelves.