Protectionism in the Age of Austerity – A Further Unlevelling of the Playing Field?
Nelson Jung, Alex Nourry, Jun 19, 2012
In our 2006 article, we highlighted an emerging wave of interventionism by EU Member States that manifested itself in a variety of protectionist measures designed to prevent foreign takeovers and promote national champions. The European Commission had initiated infringement proceedings against several Member States that had invoked industry-specific national regulations in an attempt to prevent takeovers of national companies by foreign competitors, when those transactions had already been cleared unconditionally by the Commission under its exclusive jurisdiction under the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”).
In a number of further cases, the Commission had been powerless to prevent the (attempted) creation of national champions, as it was unable to assert its jurisdiction over mergers between largely domestic players that were subject to the EUMR’s “two-thirds rule.” Member States were criticized for applying public interest considerations that were unrelated to competition policy to clear a merger creating a national champion.
Against this background, we examined the compatibility of a range of protectionist State measures with the Internal Market and queried whether the overriding interests of the Internal Market would justify the abolition of the two-thirds rule.
Nearly six years later, in the wake of a global financial crisis that gives rise to protectionist temptations once again, the rule is still in place despite mounting criticism. The economic crisis and the often painful adjustments arising from the ensuing debt consolidation process provide a seemingly compelling justification for some governments to resort to interventionist industrial policies based on the belief that governments can “pick winners” by creating or protecting national champions.
However, the Commission’s recent decisional practice demonstrates its continued resolve to block the creation of national—or even European—champions where it considers that such mergers would significantly impede effective competition.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Congress Pushes to Combat AI Deepfakes in Year-End Funding Deal
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Games Board Resignations Linked to DOJ Antitrust Investigation
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Renault Supports Potential Honda-Nissan Merger Talks
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Body Raises Concerns Over AI Market Competition
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Perplexity Caught in Crossfire as DOJ and Google Battle Over Search Dominance
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Remedies After Illumina/GRAIL– The Thorny Question of Proportionality
Dec 17, 2024 by
Aleksander Tombinski & Ciara Denihan
Why Was Illumina/GRAIL Blocked in the EU? Reviewing The European Commission’s Assessment of Vertical Mergers in Light of the 2022 Prohibition Decision
Dec 17, 2024 by
Will Sparks
The Role of Uncertainty in the Future European Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Lessons Learned From Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Svend Albaek & Daniel Donath
Illumina’s Light on Article 22 EUMR: The Suspended Step and Uncertain Future of EU Merger Control Over Below-Threshold “Killer” Mergers
Dec 17, 2024 by
Anna Tzanaki
EU-Level Jurisdiction Over “Killer Acquisitions” in the Aftermath of Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Peter Whelan