Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A Merging of Principles: Article 22 EUMR, Call-in Powers and the Limit of Commission Jurisdiction

Ulfgard Húsdal, Simon LU (2026) JURM02 20261
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Examensarbetet undersöker användandet av koncentrationsförordningens artikel 22 för företagskoncentrationer under tröskelvärdena. Det tar sin utgångspunkt i den växande skara nationella konkurrensmyndigheter som fått befogenhet att kräva anmälan av koncentrationer under tröskelvärdena genom så kallade "call-in powers". Samtidigt som konkurrensmyndigheterna i större utsträckning utrustar sig med dessa befogenheter kvarstår osäkerhet kring om utvecklingen bemöter dagens utmaningar på ett ändamålsenligt sätt, och om det sker på ett sätt som är förenligt med de rättsliga principer som koncentrationsförordningen vilar på.
Uppsatsen inleds med en kort presentation av kommissionens förvärvskontroll, följt av en redogörelse för artikel 22 och... (More)
Examensarbetet undersöker användandet av koncentrationsförordningens artikel 22 för företagskoncentrationer under tröskelvärdena. Det tar sin utgångspunkt i den växande skara nationella konkurrensmyndigheter som fått befogenhet att kräva anmälan av koncentrationer under tröskelvärdena genom så kallade "call-in powers". Samtidigt som konkurrensmyndigheterna i större utsträckning utrustar sig med dessa befogenheter kvarstår osäkerhet kring om utvecklingen bemöter dagens utmaningar på ett ändamålsenligt sätt, och om det sker på ett sätt som är förenligt med de rättsliga principer som koncentrationsförordningen vilar på.
Uppsatsen inleds med en kort presentation av kommissionens förvärvskontroll, följt av en redogörelse för artikel 22 och dess historik. Därefter behandlas senaste tidens utvecklingar, särskilt den växande oron över att vissa koncentrationer undgår effektiv kontroll inom ramen för de befintliga tröskelvärdena. Särskild uppmärksamhet ägnas åt kommissionens svar, vilket tog sig uttryck i 2021 års vägledning om hänskjutanden enligt artikel 22. Vidare analyseras den dom från EU-domstolen som satte punkt för kommissionens praxis. Kapitlet avslutas med observationer om nuvarande rättsläge efter domstolens klargörande dom.
Uppsatsen behandlar även relevanta EU-rättsliga principer. Genom tillämpning av domstolens tolkningsmetoder identifieras de principer som ligger till grund för EU:s förvärvskontroll och deras betydelse i det aktuella sammanhanget. Vikt läggs vid en balansgång mellan effektiv förvärvskontroll, rättssäkerhet och förutsebarhet. Därefter följer en syntes om hur förvärvskontroll bör utformas för att förbli förenlig med principerna.
Mot bakgrund av föregående slutsatser analyseras nationella call-in powers i Italien, Danmark och Sverige. Deras rättsliga utformning, tillämpning och syfte undersöks med stöd av tidigare praxis. Jämförelsen visar att medlemsstaternas lösningar skiljer sig väsentligt, både till rättslig konstruktion och till praktiskt bruk, vilket skapar ett fragmenterat landskap som minskar förutsebarheten för företag verksamma i flera jurisdiktioner.
I uppsatsens sista del dras slutsatser på grundval av föregående analys. Hänsyn tas till artikel 22, EU-domstolens praxis och relevanta unionsrättsliga principer för att avgöra rättsenligheten av att använda nationella call-in-befogenheter som grund för hänskjutanden till Kommissionen. Slutsatsen är att rättsenligheten inte enbart kan avgöras utifrån den formella existensen av nationell jurisdiktion. I stället måste även utformningen och tillämpningen av nationella call-in-powers bedömas mot bakgrund av de EU-rättsliga principerna. (Less)
Abstract
This master’s thesis seeks to determine the legality of using Article 22 EUMR for concentrations below the mandatory notification thresholds. It does so against the background of a general proliferation of national call-in powers to require notification of concentrations below the ordinary thresholds. While National Competition Authorities (NCAs) increasingly equip themselves with such powers, uncertainty remains as to whether this development constitutes an appropriate solution to perceived enforcement gaps, and whether it is fully compatible with the legal framework of the EUMR.
The study begins with a brief presentation of merger control in the European Union, followed by an exposé of Article 22 EUMR and its legislative history. More... (More)
This master’s thesis seeks to determine the legality of using Article 22 EUMR for concentrations below the mandatory notification thresholds. It does so against the background of a general proliferation of national call-in powers to require notification of concentrations below the ordinary thresholds. While National Competition Authorities (NCAs) increasingly equip themselves with such powers, uncertainty remains as to whether this development constitutes an appropriate solution to perceived enforcement gaps, and whether it is fully compatible with the legal framework of the EUMR.
The study begins with a brief presentation of merger control in the European Union, followed by an exposé of Article 22 EUMR and its legislative history. More recent developments are then outlined, notably the growing concern that certain concentrations escape effective scrutiny under existing turnover-based thresholds. Particular attention is given to the Commission’s response to this perceived enforcement gap, embodied by the 2021 Guidance on Article 22 referrals. The study further examines the judgment that brought this practice to an end and concludes with observations on the present legal position following the Court’s clarification of Article 22.
To deepen the understanding of Article 22’s purpose and constitutional context, the study proceeds with a presentation and analysis of the relevant principles of EU law. By applying the Court’s established methods of interpretation, key principles underlying the EUMR are identified and their significance in the present context drawn out. Particular attention is given to the balance between effective enforcement and the principle of legal certainty. The analysis leads to a synthesis concerning how merger control ought to be structured in order to remain compatible with principles of EU law.
Drawing on these findings, the study then analyses national systems of call-in powers in Italy, Denmark and Sweden. Their design, application, and rationale are examined with the help of previous practice. The comparison demonstrates that the systems remain heterogeneous, both in their legal construction and use, contributing to a fragmented landscape that reduces foreseeability for undertakings operating across multiple jurisdictions.
In the final part of the study, conclusions are drawn on the basis of the preceding analysis. Article 22 EUMR, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, and the relevant principles of EU law are brought together in order to assess the legality of employing national call-in powers as a basis for referrals to the Commission. The study concludes that the legality of such referrals cannot be determined solely by the formal existence of national jurisdiction. Rather, the design and application of national call-in powers must also be considered in light of the EUMR’s underlying general principles. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ulfgard Húsdal, Simon LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20261
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU law, Competition law
language
English
id
9227291
date added to LUP
2026-06-10 17:17:36
date last changed
2026-06-10 17:17:36
@misc{9227291,
  abstract     = {{This master’s thesis seeks to determine the legality of using Article 22 EUMR for concentrations below the mandatory notification thresholds. It does so against the background of a general proliferation of national call-in powers to require notification of concentrations below the ordinary thresholds. While National Competition Authorities (NCAs) increasingly equip themselves with such powers, uncertainty remains as to whether this development constitutes an appropriate solution to perceived enforcement gaps, and whether it is fully compatible with the legal framework of the EUMR.
The study begins with a brief presentation of merger control in the European Union, followed by an exposé of Article 22 EUMR and its legislative history. More recent developments are then outlined, notably the growing concern that certain concentrations escape effective scrutiny under existing turnover-based thresholds. Particular attention is given to the Commission’s response to this perceived enforcement gap, embodied by the 2021 Guidance on Article 22 referrals. The study further examines the judgment that brought this practice to an end and concludes with observations on the present legal position following the Court’s clarification of Article 22.
To deepen the understanding of Article 22’s purpose and constitutional context, the study proceeds with a presentation and analysis of the relevant principles of EU law. By applying the Court’s established methods of interpretation, key principles underlying the EUMR are identified and their significance in the present context drawn out. Particular attention is given to the balance between effective enforcement and the principle of legal certainty. The analysis leads to a synthesis concerning how merger control ought to be structured in order to remain compatible with principles of EU law.
Drawing on these findings, the study then analyses national systems of call-in powers in Italy, Denmark and Sweden. Their design, application, and rationale are examined with the help of previous practice. The comparison demonstrates that the systems remain heterogeneous, both in their legal construction and use, contributing to a fragmented landscape that reduces foreseeability for undertakings operating across multiple jurisdictions.
In the final part of the study, conclusions are drawn on the basis of the preceding analysis. Article 22 EUMR, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, and the relevant principles of EU law are brought together in order to assess the legality of employing national call-in powers as a basis for referrals to the Commission. The study concludes that the legality of such referrals cannot be determined solely by the formal existence of national jurisdiction. Rather, the design and application of national call-in powers must also be considered in light of the EUMR’s underlying general principles.}},
  author       = {{Ulfgard Húsdal, Simon}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{A Merging of Principles: Article 22 EUMR, Call-in Powers and the Limit of Commission Jurisdiction}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}