Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Between Legal Dogma and Counterfactual Analysis: Exploring Jurisdictional Shifts in EUMR Post Article 22 Guidance

Marionell, Nabyiel Pieter LU (2023) JURM02 20232
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The jurisdiction of the Commission to review concentrations under the provi-sions of the EUMR is established either by the turnover thresholds or the case referral system. In both of these cases, jurisdiction is established through quantitative criteria, with the exception of the case referral mechanism provid-ed for in Article 22 EUMR.
Historically, Article 22 EUMR was designed to enable Member States that do not have a national merger regulation to request the Commission to, on their behalf, review concentrations that are competitively significant within their territory. However, through the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR, that article has now been ‘made’ available for all Member States regardless of the exist-ence or scope of... (More)
The jurisdiction of the Commission to review concentrations under the provi-sions of the EUMR is established either by the turnover thresholds or the case referral system. In both of these cases, jurisdiction is established through quantitative criteria, with the exception of the case referral mechanism provid-ed for in Article 22 EUMR.
Historically, Article 22 EUMR was designed to enable Member States that do not have a national merger regulation to request the Commission to, on their behalf, review concentrations that are competitively significant within their territory. However, through the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR, that article has now been ‘made’ available for all Member States regardless of the exist-ence or scope of national merger control regulation.
With this new approach, the Commission has managed to expand the jurisdic-tional scope of the EUMR de facto: virtually all M&A transactions can now be subject to scrutiny by the Commission – as illustrated by the case of Illu-mina/GRAIL. Had the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR not taken place this would not have happened.
With the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR, the Commission has managed to ‘close’ the enforcement gap. Instead of opting for a reform of the turnover thresholds, the Commission opted for flexibility as its recourse in handling jurisdictional challenges. With the flexibility provided by that article, there is no longer a need to fear that anti-competitive concentrations, such as ‘killer acquisitions’, may escape regulatory scrutiny. However, this flexibility comes with the price of legal certainty.
The re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR is considered to have overhauled the threshold-based system of the EUMR. The safe harbour that once was pro-vided by the turnover thresholds now no longer exists. The current state of the EUMR landscape is characterised by unprecedented uncertainty.
However, considering that the EUMR is still in the early stages of entering this new era, one cannot yet draw definite conclusions. If the case of Illumi-na/GRAIL serves as an indication, one can be sure that the straightforward and objective mechanism provided by the EUMR is no more. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Den Europeiska Kommissionens (’Kommissionen’) jurisdiktion att granska
koncentrationer enligt bestämmelserna i koncentrationsförordningen
(’EUMR’) fastställs antingen av omsättningsbaserade trösklarna eller systemet för hänskjutande av ärenden. I båda dessa fall fastställs jurisdiktionen
genom kvantitativa kriterier, med undantag för hänskjutandemekanismen
som föreskrivs genom Artikel 22 EUMR.

Historiskt sett har Artikel 22 EUMR utformats för att möjliggöra för medlemsstater som inte har en nationell förvärvskontrollagstiftning att begära att kommissionen åt deras vägnar granskar koncentrationer som är
onkurrenskraftiga inom deras territorium. Med den nya tillämpningen av Artikel 22 EUMR har den artikeln nu ’gjorts’ tillgänglig... (More)
Den Europeiska Kommissionens (’Kommissionen’) jurisdiktion att granska
koncentrationer enligt bestämmelserna i koncentrationsförordningen
(’EUMR’) fastställs antingen av omsättningsbaserade trösklarna eller systemet för hänskjutande av ärenden. I båda dessa fall fastställs jurisdiktionen
genom kvantitativa kriterier, med undantag för hänskjutandemekanismen
som föreskrivs genom Artikel 22 EUMR.

Historiskt sett har Artikel 22 EUMR utformats för att möjliggöra för medlemsstater som inte har en nationell förvärvskontrollagstiftning att begära att kommissionen åt deras vägnar granskar koncentrationer som är
onkurrenskraftiga inom deras territorium. Med den nya tillämpningen av Artikel 22 EUMR har den artikeln nu ’gjorts’ tillgänglig för alla medlemsstater oavsett
existens eller omfattning av nationell förvärvskontrollagstiftning.

Med detta nya tillvägagångssätt har Kommissionen lyckats utöka EUMR:s
jurisdiktionsomfattning de facto: praktiskt taget alla M&A-transaktioner kan
nu bli föremål för granskning av Kommissionen – vilket illustreras av fallet
Illumina/GRAIL. Hade Artikel 22 EUMR inte getts en ny tolkning hade det
här aldrig inträffats.

Med den nya tillämpningen av Artikel 22 EUMR har Kommissionen lyckats
'stänga' det enforcement gap. I stället för att ändra de omsättningsbaserade
trösklarna valde Kommissionen att öka dess flexibilitet. Genom den nya tilllämpningen av Artikel 22 EUMR finns det inte längre någon anledning att
befara att konkurrensbegränsande koncentrationen, såsom ’killer acquisitions’, kan undgå granskning. Den här flexibiliteten kommer dock på bekostnad av rättssäkerhet.

Den nya tillämpningen av Artikel 22 EUMR anses ha totalt omvandlat det
omsättningsbaserade tröskelsystemet för EUMR. Den trygga zonen som en
gång tillhandahölls av de omsättningsbaserade trösklarna existerar nu inte
längre. Det nuvarande tillståndet för EUMR-landskapet kännetecknas av osäkerhet utan motstycke.

Men med tanke på att EUMR fortfarande är i ett tidigt skede av att gå in i den
här nya eran, kan man ännu inte dra säkra slutsatser. Om fallet Illumina/GRAIL fungerar som en indikation kan man vara säker på att den enkla
och objektiva mekanismen som tillhandahölls av EUMR inte längre finns. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Marionell, Nabyiel Pieter LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20232
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU, EU law, EUMR, Competition Law
language
English
id
9143555
date added to LUP
2024-01-29 09:55:54
date last changed
2024-01-29 09:55:54
@misc{9143555,
  abstract     = {{The jurisdiction of the Commission to review concentrations under the provi-sions of the EUMR is established either by the turnover thresholds or the case referral system. In both of these cases, jurisdiction is established through quantitative criteria, with the exception of the case referral mechanism provid-ed for in Article 22 EUMR. 
Historically, Article 22 EUMR was designed to enable Member States that do not have a national merger regulation to request the Commission to, on their behalf, review concentrations that are competitively significant within their territory. However, through the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR, that article has now been ‘made’ available for all Member States regardless of the exist-ence or scope of national merger control regulation. 
With this new approach, the Commission has managed to expand the jurisdic-tional scope of the EUMR de facto: virtually all M&A transactions can now be subject to scrutiny by the Commission – as illustrated by the case of Illu-mina/GRAIL. Had the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR not taken place this would not have happened.
With the re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR, the Commission has managed to ‘close’ the enforcement gap. Instead of opting for a reform of the turnover thresholds, the Commission opted for flexibility as its recourse in handling jurisdictional challenges. With the flexibility provided by that article, there is no longer a need to fear that anti-competitive concentrations, such as ‘killer acquisitions’, may escape regulatory scrutiny. However, this flexibility comes with the price of legal certainty.
The re-appraisal of Article 22 EUMR is considered to have overhauled the threshold-based system of the EUMR. The safe harbour that once was pro-vided by the turnover thresholds now no longer exists. The current state of the EUMR landscape is characterised by unprecedented uncertainty.
However, considering that the EUMR is still in the early stages of entering this new era, one cannot yet draw definite conclusions. If the case of Illumi-na/GRAIL serves as an indication, one can be sure that the straightforward and objective mechanism provided by the EUMR is no more.}},
  author       = {{Marionell, Nabyiel Pieter}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Between Legal Dogma and Counterfactual Analysis: Exploring Jurisdictional Shifts in EUMR Post Article 22 Guidance}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}