EU Merger Control of below-threshold concentrations Post-Illumina – A legal study into the balance between the principle of subsidiarity, legal certainty and the need for effective control.
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- EU:s koncentrationsförordning syftar till att skydda konkurrensen på den inre marknaden från skada som orsakas av betydande strukturella förändringar, genom att säkerställa att företagsförvärv och fusioner leder till ökad tillväxt och en högre levnadsstandard inom EU. Denna uppsats undersöker det rättsliga ”vakuum” som uppstår utanför förordningens tillämpningsområde, samt hur den praktiska tillämpningen av EU:s koncentrationskontroll har utvecklats i ljuset av EU-domstolens dom i Illumina/Grail-målet från hösten 2024. Undersökningens centrala fokus är jurisdiktion i ljuset av artikel 22 i EU:s koncentrationsförordning, och huruvida den senaste utvecklingen och förändringen av tillämpning kan åtgärda vad som upplevs som ett... (More)
- EU:s koncentrationsförordning syftar till att skydda konkurrensen på den inre marknaden från skada som orsakas av betydande strukturella förändringar, genom att säkerställa att företagsförvärv och fusioner leder till ökad tillväxt och en högre levnadsstandard inom EU. Denna uppsats undersöker det rättsliga ”vakuum” som uppstår utanför förordningens tillämpningsområde, samt hur den praktiska tillämpningen av EU:s koncentrationskontroll har utvecklats i ljuset av EU-domstolens dom i Illumina/Grail-målet från hösten 2024. Undersökningens centrala fokus är jurisdiktion i ljuset av artikel 22 i EU:s koncentrationsförordning, och huruvida den senaste utvecklingen och förändringen av tillämpning kan åtgärda vad som upplevs som ett "jurisdiktionsgapet" utan att kompromissa med de grundläggande målen och principerna bakom EU:s koncentrationskontroll.
Genom att redogöra för den regulatoriska strukturen för EU:s koncentrationskontroll enligt koncentrationsförordningen och identifiera centrala begrepp, såsom kriteriet om ’EU-dimension’, förklarar uppsatsen de grundläggande syftena med det nuvarande systemet för koncentrationsprövning. Enligt uppsatsen bygger dagens system på omsättningströsklar. En avgörande svaghet med detta är att lågomslutande men högvärdiga transaktioner kan undgå prövning enligt EU:s koncentrationskontroll. Problemet är särskilt vanligt i R&D intensiva sektorer som i läkemedelsindustrin och inom digital teknik. För att hantera detta sökte kommissionen omtolka innebörden av artikel 22 i ett vägledningsdokument från 2021. Denna tolkning tillät hänskjutningar från medlemsstater, även de som saknade nationell behörighet att själva granska transaktionen. Denna praxis förklarades dock oförenlig med unionsrätten av EU-domstolen i Illumina/Grail. Domstolen slog fast att en medlemsstat måste ha jurisdiktion enligt sin nationella rätt innan en hänskjutning enligt artikel 22 kan göras. Domen betonade principerna om rättssäkerhet, förutsebarhet samt vikten av att upprätthålla den institutionella maktbalansen mellan medlemsstaterna och kommissionen.
Mot bakgrund av domen föreslogs en ny lösning som uppmuntrar medlemsstaterna att ändra sin nationella lagstiftning för att införa så kallade call-in-befogenheter eller sänka sina nationella tröskelvärden, vilket skulle möjliggöra hänskjutningar enligt artikel 22. Enligt slutsatserna i denna uppsats finns det en risk att den nya tillämpning även kan leda till en fragmenterad tillsyn och urholkning av principen om enhetlig granskning (one-stop shop), vilket i slutändan skapar en rättsosäkerhet för de företag som deltar i en koncentration. (Less) - Abstract
- The EU Merger Regulation aims to protect the common market from lasting damage to competition caused by significant structural changes, by ensuring that mergers and acquisitions ultimately lead to improved growth and a higher standard of living within the EU. This thesis examines the regulatory gap outside the scope of the EU Merger Regulation, and how the practice of EU merger control has evolved in light of the CJEU’s 2024 decision in Illumina/Grail. The central focus of this investigation is the jurisdiction under of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR)—commonly known as the ‘Dutch clause’—and whether the recent trends in its application can address a perceived ‘jurisdictional gap’ without compromising the fundamental... (More)
- The EU Merger Regulation aims to protect the common market from lasting damage to competition caused by significant structural changes, by ensuring that mergers and acquisitions ultimately lead to improved growth and a higher standard of living within the EU. This thesis examines the regulatory gap outside the scope of the EU Merger Regulation, and how the practice of EU merger control has evolved in light of the CJEU’s 2024 decision in Illumina/Grail. The central focus of this investigation is the jurisdiction under of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR)—commonly known as the ‘Dutch clause’—and whether the recent trends in its application can address a perceived ‘jurisdictional gap’ without compromising the fundamental objectives and principles of EU merger control.
By outlining the regulatory structure of EU merger control under the EUMR and identifying key features, such as concept of ‘EU dimension’, the thesis outlines the foundational objectives of the current merger control regime. As found by this thesis, the current regime is based on turnover threshold. And a central weakness of this system is that low-turnover, high-value transactions might escape scrutiny under the EU merger control. This problem is especially common in R&D heavy sectors like pharma and digital technologies. To remedy this, the Commission sought to re-interpret the meaning of Article 22 EUMR in a 2021 Guidance Paper. This interpretation allowed referrals from Member States—even those without jurisdiction under their national laws. This new approach was declared incompatible by the CJEU in its Illumina/Grail ruling. The Court held that Member States must possess jurisdiction under their national laws before making Article 22 referrals. The ruling put an emphasis on the principles of legal certainty, and foreseeability, as well as the importance of maintaining institutional balance between Member States and the Commission. In light of the judgement a new approach was put forward. Which encouraged Member States to amend their national regimes to introduce call-in powers or lower thresholds, thereby enabling referrals under Article 22. However, as found in this thesis, this new practice may still lead to a fragmented enforcement and erosion of the one-stop-shop principle, and ultimately legal uncertainty for undertakings. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9210522
- author
- Dolff, Agnes LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU law, Competition Law
- language
- English
- id
- 9210522
- date added to LUP
- 2025-09-23 15:15:04
- date last changed
- 2025-09-23 15:15:04
@misc{9210522,
abstract = {{The EU Merger Regulation aims to protect the common market from lasting damage to competition caused by significant structural changes, by ensuring that mergers and acquisitions ultimately lead to improved growth and a higher standard of living within the EU. This thesis examines the regulatory gap outside the scope of the EU Merger Regulation, and how the practice of EU merger control has evolved in light of the CJEU’s 2024 decision in Illumina/Grail. The central focus of this investigation is the jurisdiction under of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR)—commonly known as the ‘Dutch clause’—and whether the recent trends in its application can address a perceived ‘jurisdictional gap’ without compromising the fundamental objectives and principles of EU merger control.
By outlining the regulatory structure of EU merger control under the EUMR and identifying key features, such as concept of ‘EU dimension’, the thesis outlines the foundational objectives of the current merger control regime. As found by this thesis, the current regime is based on turnover threshold. And a central weakness of this system is that low-turnover, high-value transactions might escape scrutiny under the EU merger control. This problem is especially common in R&D heavy sectors like pharma and digital technologies. To remedy this, the Commission sought to re-interpret the meaning of Article 22 EUMR in a 2021 Guidance Paper. This interpretation allowed referrals from Member States—even those without jurisdiction under their national laws. This new approach was declared incompatible by the CJEU in its Illumina/Grail ruling. The Court held that Member States must possess jurisdiction under their national laws before making Article 22 referrals. The ruling put an emphasis on the principles of legal certainty, and foreseeability, as well as the importance of maintaining institutional balance between Member States and the Commission. In light of the judgement a new approach was put forward. Which encouraged Member States to amend their national regimes to introduce call-in powers or lower thresholds, thereby enabling referrals under Article 22. However, as found in this thesis, this new practice may still lead to a fragmented enforcement and erosion of the one-stop-shop principle, and ultimately legal uncertainty for undertakings.}},
author = {{Dolff, Agnes}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU Merger Control of below-threshold concentrations Post-Illumina – A legal study into the balance between the principle of subsidiarity, legal certainty and the need for effective control.}},
year = {{2025}},
}