The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has dismissed Thyssenkrupp’s appeal against the European Union’s decision to block its proposed joint venture with Tata Steel. The German industrial giant had aimed to form a partnership that would have created Europe’s second-largest steelmaker, a move seen as an effort to address overcapacity and mounting challenges in the steel sector.
According to Reuters, the CJEU, based in Luxembourg, fully sided with the European Commission, the EU’s competition watchdog, in its decision to block the merger. The Commission had expressed concerns that the joint venture could lead to higher prices for steel products, an outcome it deemed harmful to competition.
Thyssenkrupp, reacting to the decision, issued a statement saying it would carefully review the court’s ruling. The company, however, stood by its earlier position, arguing that the European Commission’s assessment failed to consider the broader difficulties facing the steel industry.
Read more: Germany Approves Sale of Thyssenkrupp Stake to Czech Billionaire
“In view of the difficult situation in the European steel industry, we do not consider as appropriate the standards applied by the European Commission to assess impairments of effective competition,” the company said.
Per Reuters, Thyssenkrupp has been actively trying to offload or merge its steel division for several years, and this latest legal setback is another blow to its strategic efforts. Despite the court ruling, the company remains committed to exploring other options, including a potential 50:50 joint venture with Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky.
The original plan with Tata Steel, proposed over five years ago, was part of a broader industry consolidation effort as the European steel market faced growing global competition, sluggish demand, and environmental pressures. However, the Commission blocked the deal, citing concerns about potential anti-competitive effects, particularly in the markets for automotive steel and packaging materials.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh