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 r

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 NL 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

30.04.2019 EU law
Climate goals and energy targets: legal perspectives

Seminar - On Tuesday April 30th, Stibbe organizes a seminar on climate goals and energy targets. Climate change has incited different international and supranational institutions to issue climate goals and renewable energy targets. Both the UN and the EU have led this movement with various legal instruments.

Read more

15.03.2019 EU law
European Court of Justice issues landmark ruling on parental liability

Short Reads - On 14 March the European Court of Justice issued a landmark judgment in the Skanska case. In this ruling, the Court of Justice held that parent companies can be held liable for the damage caused by a competition infringement committed by their subsidiary if the parent company (that holds all the shares in the subsidiary) has dissolved the subsidiary but continued its economic activity.

Read more

01.03.2019 NL law
Does selling a phone on an online marketplace make you a "trader" under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive?

Short Reads - Online marketplaces provide sales channels not only for professional traders but also for individuals selling second-hand goods. For buyers, online advertisements do not always make it clear whether the seller is a professional trader or an individual. This distinction is important because consumers buying from a professional trader can benefit from EU consumer laws, while these protections do not apply in consumer-to-consumer sales.

Read more

18.02.2019 BE law
Plan-MER voor Vlaams windturbinekader? Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen te rade bij Europa

Articles - Het wordt stilaan een traditie van de Belgische rechter om het Hof van Justitie te bevragen over de milieueffectenbeoordeling en -rapportage (MER). Na de Raad van State en het Grondwettelijk Hof is het de beurt aan de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. In een tussenarrest van 4 december 2018 heeft de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen aan het Hof van Justitie een lijst met prejudiciële vragen gesteld over de plan-MER-plicht van het Vlaamse kader voor de uitbating van windturbines. Mogen we ons verwachten aan een juridische saga "d'Oultremont pt.II"?

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 – en cookieverklaring