Short Reads

Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint venture

Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures


Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met.

The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

In its ruling, the Court confirmed that not the JV itself, but its parents are the “undertakings concerned” when determining whether the turnover thresholds are met, if they are the “real players” behind the transaction. Key to this assessment is the level of involvement of the parents in the acquisition steps, including preparing the offer, structuring due diligence and negotiating the transaction structure.

Commission prohibition

In April 2017, the Commission prohibited the joint acquisition by HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their 50/50 full-function JV Duna Dráva Cement (DDC) of two Cemex subsidiaries in Hungary and Croatia. The EU regulator found that the transaction raised significant concerns in relation to the Croatian markets for grey cement, which could lead to a rise in prices.

The parties appealed the Commission’s decision and argued that the Commission had wrongly claimed jurisdiction by considering the parents as the “undertakings concerned” instead of DDC itself. If DDC had been considered as the buyer (instead of the parents), the Commission would not have jurisdiction over the deal as the turnover thresholds would not have been met due to DCC’s low revenues.

General Court ruling

The Court found that the Commission had jurisdiction to assess the merger and was right to consider the parent companies as the “real players behind the transaction”. The Court considered that the fact that the JV is fully functioning from an operational point of view does not mean that it enjoys autonomy as regards to the adoption of its strategic decisions. According to the judgment, the Commission can assess the economic reality of a transaction and identify the undertakings concerned by looking in particular at how the acquisition process was initiated, organised and financed.

The Court also rejected the cement companies’ arguments that the Commission had erred i) in its assessment of the transaction by wrongly defining the relevant geographic market, ii) in finding that the transaction would affect a “substantial part” of the market, and iii) in its assessment of the competitive impact of the transaction. The Court further confirmed that the remedies offered by the parties, which consisted of granting a competitor access to a cement terminal in southern Croatia, were insufficient to address the competition concerns.


The General Court judgment provides useful guidance in cases involving a JV acting as a buyer. The Court confirms that the parents to a JV are the relevant undertakings when determining whether the turnover thresholds are met if the parents, rather than the JV, are the “real players” behind the transaction. Key to this assessment is the level of involvement of the parents in the acquisition steps, including the preparation of the offer, the structure of due diligence and the negotiation of the transaction structure.

In deal scenarios where JVs act as the purchasers, companies should therefore carefully consider the parent companies’ involvement in the acquisition process before deciding on whether or not the transaction needs to be notified to the Commission. The Commission can impose hefty fines on companies implementing a notifiable concentration before notification to and clearance by the Commission.


This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of November 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:


Related news

2022: the big reveal of 2021’s competition law promises

Short Reads - 2021 was riddled with sneak previews of a “review of competition policy tools with unprecedented scope and ambition”. These sneak previews, alongside 2021’s other competition law developments, seem to point in the direction of a more ‘social’ side to competition law in 2022, as well as looming Big Tech and Big Pharma battles, intensified (international) cooperation, more clarity on merger-related obligations for companies, and shiny new vertical and horizontal block exemption regulations. 2022 will reveal how and when the revised tools will materialise.

Read more

Google Shopping: self-preferencing is a form of abuse of dominance

Short Reads - On 10 November 2021, the General Court (GC) almost entirely dismissed Google’s action against the European Commission’s Google Shopping decision. According to the European Commission (the Commission), Google illegally favoured its own comparison shopping service by displaying it more prominently in its search results than other comparison shopping services (see our July 2017 Newsletter). The Commission found that Google was abusing its dominant position and imposed a EUR 2.42 billion.

Read more

Back to the future – Commission publishes roadmap for green and digital challenges

Short Reads - The Commission’s Communication “A competition policy fit for new challenges” (link) (the “Communication”) identifies key areas in which competition law and policy can support European efforts in dealing with the challenges of the green and digital transitions. The document covers all areas of competition law (antitrust, merger control, and State aid) and identifies various ways in which new and existing tools can contribute to addressing these challenges.

Read more