The EU Merger Regulation: A One-Stop Shop or a Procedural Minefield?

32 Pages Posted: 7 Aug 2016

Date Written: April 22, 2013

Abstract

In 2001, the proposed $42 billion merger between U.S. companies GE and Honeywell was precluded by the European Union after receiving a stamp of approval from the Department of Justice and 11 other jurisdictions. This case provided startling evidence that the jurisdiction of European Union antitrust regulators is certainly capable of impacting business on this side of the Atlantic. This decision made it clear that U.S. attorneys advising U.S. companies and structuring M&A transactions need to be familiar with the antitrust laws of the European Union.

The antitrust principles of the European Union are set out in the TFEU and merger control is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. In the European Union, merger control is divided between the European Commission and the Member States. The European Commission and the Member States do not have concurrent power to handle merger control. The Merger Regulation aims to create a “one-stop shop system” by providing the European Commission with jurisdiction to review mergers that transcend national borders. The jurisdiction of the European Commission applies to all concentrations with a community dimension, irrespective of where the companies are registered or where their headquarters or production facilities are located.

There are two primary reasons that mergers between U.S. companies may need the approval of the European Commission. First, due to the considerable number of U.S. companies that either own subsidiaries or generate revenue in Europe and the Merger Regulation's definition of "community dimension," the antitrust laws of the European Union are likely to affect the ability of U.S. companies to complete M&A. Secondly, in several aspects of merger control, the European Union's approach diverges from the approach taken by U.S. antitrust authorities.

From an economic standpoint, the European Union’s emphasis on competitors, instead of efficiency and consumer welfare is divergent from the approach adopted by US regulators. This divergence has the potential to affect merging U.S. firms, as the GE/Honeywell case demonstrates. From a procedural standpoint, the EU Merger Regulation employs a Referral System, which causes jurisdictional uncertainty, legal uncertainty, and increases delay and expense. Although the referral system was set out to create a more flexible system of merger review in the European Union, it is both conceptually flawed and procedurally flawed. The referral system reduces the effectiveness of the one-stop shop and increases legal and jurisdictional uncertainty, especially through the use of partial referrals. The Referral System is inefficient and places a significant burden on businesses.

Keywords: Merger Regulation, Referral System, M&A, EU, Competition, Antitrust

Suggested Citation

McCaskill, Laura, The EU Merger Regulation: A One-Stop Shop or a Procedural Minefield? (April 22, 2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2818469 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2818469

Laura McCaskill (Contact Author)

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
124
rank
215,832
Abstract Views
630
PlumX Metrics