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
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand