Insights

Brussels – May 22, 2024: Senior antitrust regulators from the European Commission, the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority, and the U.S. Department of Justice will join industry and academic leaders for in-depth discussions at the Crowell & Moring and King's College London Sixth Annual EU Competition Law Conference on June 11 at TheMerode in Brussels.

Just over a year ago, the notification obligations under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) became applicable. Since then, M&A transactions and bids for government contracts above certain thresholds must be notified to the European Commission. Pending the Commission’s review, the transaction cannot be completed, or the contract cannot be awarded. What lessons can be learned from the application of the FSR to date? Has the FSR proved to be an effective tool in leveling the playing field, or has its main effect been to burden companies with red tape, at the risk of discouraging investment in Europe?

On September 3, 2024, the EU Court of Justice overturned the first-instance judgment of the EU General Court, which had held that the European Commission could review transactions that fall below EU and Member States' merger control thresholds through referrals by national competition authorities under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (Case C-611/22 P, Illumina v Commission).

On August 1, 2024, the European Commission published its draft Guidelines on abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. Their adoption would mark the first major update in over 15 years of the Commission’s guidance on the application of the prohibition of abuse of dominance laid down in Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Commission’s 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, which received only a limited update in 2023, were once hailed as a welcome move away from a legalistic, form-based approach to an effects-based approached informed by economics. Is the pendulum now swinging back to a more formalistic approach based on presumptions, shifting the burden of proof onto dominant undertakings and heralding an era of stricter enforcement?

Wij hebben het genoegen u uit te nodigen voor de officiële voorstelling van het boek “Concentratiecontrole in België” van Karel Bourgeois op 8 december 2022.

The European Commission is currently reviewing the Horizontal Block Exemption Regulations and the Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines. The revised regulations and guidelines will enter into force by the end of this year. The drafts reflect the Commission’s updated approach to horizontal cooperation issues such as joint purchasing, joint production, bidding consortia, information exchanges, etc. They also provide new guidance on agreements pursuing sustainability (ESG) goals. This webinar will focus on the key changes that inhouse counsel should be aware of.

On June 1, 2022, the various governments of Belgium reached a cooperation agreement on a screening regime for foreign direct investments (FDI). The new regime aims to protect Belgium’s national security, public order, and strategic interests. To that end, transactions in a wide range of sectors, and regardless of their size, will be subject to mandatory and suspensory notification to a new body, the Interfederal Screening Commission (ISC). The new regime is currently expected to enter into force by mid-2023.

In response to the digital revolution and the increasing impact technology has on business, Competition Authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are stepping up merger control enforcement. They are revising current policies, advocating for more aggressive use of existing rules to their full potential effect, and calling for new laws and regulations where they see the need. What does this mean for companies engaging in transactions in the digital marketplace and other industries? Is it becoming harder to predict if a deal will be subject to merger control? Are some deals more likely to receive enhanced scrutiny than others? And, what are the broader implications for all sectors when Competition Authorities push the boundaries on traditional theories of harm and remedies, and prohibitions become more commonplace?