Short Reads

Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"

Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"

02.10.2017 EU law

On 7 September 2017, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court on the interpretation of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). It confirmed that a change in the form of control from sole to joint control of an existing undertaking is considered a concentration under the EUMR only when the joint venture resulting from this transaction performs on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity in the relevant market and therefore qualifies as a full-function joint venture (FFJV).

The case before the Austrian Supreme Court originated from the notification by Austria Asphalt to the Austrian Federal Competition Authority of its acquisition of 50% of the shares in an existing asphalt mixing plant. At the time, the plant was solely owned by Teerag Asphalt, which would keep the other 50% of the shares. The asphalt mixing plant which was the object of the notification would supply only to its parent companies (and had only supplied its sole parent company Teerag Asphalt before the transaction). It therefore qualified as a non-FFJV.

Since a textual interpretation of the relevant articles of the EUMR did not provide a clear answer, the Court of Justice had to assess the purpose and general structure of the EUMR. It concluded that the concept of a concentration under the EUMR captures transactions that bring about a lasting change in the structure of the market. With regard to joint ventures, the Court then clarified that they fall within the ambit of the EUMR only if they perform on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity and therefore qualify as a FFJV.

In addition, the Court clarified that the EUMR does not make a distinction between a newly created joint venture and a joint venture that results from a change from sole to joint control.

Interestingly, in its judgment the Court dismissed the European Commission's view that a transaction involving a change in the form of control over an existing undertaking is always a concentration, regardless of whether the joint venture is full-function or not.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court
  2. Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  3. Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position
  4. Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017
  5. District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

Team

Related news

06.12.2017 EU law
EU Court of Justice: Suppliers of luxury goods may prohibit their authorised distributors from selling on third party internet platforms

Short Reads - Today the ECJ rendered its much anticipated judgment in a dispute between a supplier of luxury cosmetics (Coty) and one of its authorised resellers. The central question was whether Coty is allowed under the competition rules to forbid its resellers to sell Coty products over third party internet platforms with visible logos (like eBay or Amazon).

Read more

01.12.2017 EU law
General Court partially annuls the European Commission's ICAP decision (in the YIRD case)

Short Reads - On 10 November 2017, the General Court (GC) partially annulled the European Commission's 2015 decision to fine UK-based broker ICAP close to EUR 15 million for "facilitating" various infringements relating to Yen interest rate derivatives (YIRDs). The GC's judgment provides a useful overview of the current state of EU case law on (i) "by object" infringements; (ii) the role of facilitators in cartel cases; (iii) "complex single and continuous infringements"; (iv) the presumption of innocence; and (v) the Commission's duty to state reasons when setting the level of a fine.

Read more

07.12.2017 BE law
Décision inédite de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne en matière de protection de l’environnement : menace de sanctions financières pour la Pologne.

Articles - Dans son ordonnance du 20 novembre 2017, la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne a ordonné, sous astreinte, à la Pologne de cesser immédiatement les opérations de gestion forestière active dans la forêt de Białowieża. Cette ordonnance sort de l’ordinaire parce qu’elle contient des mesures provisoires mais également parce qu’elle est assortie de sanctions financières. Ces deux aspects sont pourtant des gages de l’efficacité du contrôle de la Cour devant laquelle la procédure au fond. L’impact de cette ordonnance va donc bien au-delà du seul cas de la forêt de Białowieża en Pologne.  

Read more

01.12.2017 EU law
National courts may declare that a practice infringes competition law after it was the subject of a commitment decision

Short Reads - On 23 November 2017, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court regarding the legal consequences of an European Commission commitment decision. The Spanish court sought guidance as to whether an EU commitment decision concerning long-term exclusive supply agreements between Spain's leading oil and gas company Repsol and its service station tenants, prevented the Spanish court from declaring that the agreements infringed competition law. 

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy