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

Related news

20.09.2022 EU law
Launch of Metaverse blog series

Articles - Stibbe launches a new blog series focusing on the legal challenges of the Metaverse. In our upcoming blog posts, we will discuss the legal challenges of NFTs, crypto-assets, Metaverse platforms, crypto exchanges, DAO, and many more.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Zuiver commercieel belang ook gerechtvaardigd belang: Raad van State laat zich er niet over uit

Short Reads - Op 27 juli 2022 heeft de Raad van State bevestigd dat de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens onterecht een boete van € 575.000 aan VoetbalTV heeft opgelegd. De hoop bestond dat de Afdeling antwoord zou geven op de vraag of de AP terecht of onterecht meent dat een zuiver commercieel belang géén gerechtvaardigd belang kan zijn in de zin van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming. Het antwoord op deze vraag blijft echter uit.  

Read more

03.08.2022 EU law
Gotta catch ‘em all? Upward referral of ‘killer acquisitions’ upheld

Short Reads - Companies involved in intended or completed M&A transactions falling below EU and national merger notification thresholds should beware that their deals may still catch the European Commission’s eye. The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision to accept a national referral request regarding Illumina’s acquisition of Grail: a transaction not triggering any of the notification thresholds within the EEA.

Read more

28.07.2022 NL law
Purely commercial interest also a legitimate interest? Council of State leaves the question unanswered.

Short Reads - On 27 July 2022, the Council of State confirmed that the Dutch Data Protection Authority wrongly imposed a €575,000 fine on VoetbalTV. But the Council did not answer the question whether the AP rightly or wrongly believes that a purely commercial interest cannot be a legitimate interest within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Read more

06.07.2022 NL law
Highest Dutch court: the postman may still ring twice?

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy was wrong to unblock the ACM’s prohibited merger between postal operators PostNL and Sandd on grounds of public interest. According to the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), the Minister cannot substitute the ACM’s assessment for its own when considering public interest reasons. Since the Minister did do so in this particular case, the CBb annulled the Minister’s merger clearance.

Read more