Page 1

Page 2
German merger control
This article first appeared on LexisPSL Competition on 06/08/2012. Updated 18/06/2014. or a free trial of
LexisPSL clic! here
Produced in partnership with Hogan Lovells
A conversation with Falk Schning, counsel at the Munich office of gloal law fir! Hogan Lovells on ke"
issues on !erger control in #er!an"
A conversation with a local expert--top 10 questions
1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the German merger control regime and are
any updates/developments expected in the coming year
As of $% &une 2%1$, the '
th
(evision of the #er!an Act against (estraints of )o!petition *#+,- *8. "#$%
&o'elle- led to !a.or changes of #er!an co!petition law, also with regard to !erger control/
1 the #er!an !erger rules have een roadl" har!onised with 01 law/ 2n particular, #er!an"
adopted the S20) *Significant 2!pedi!ent to 0ffective )o!petition- test/ 3ow, the previous test
as to whether a !erger is e4pected to create or strengthen a do!inant position is onl" one
e4a!ple of a significant i!pedi!ent to effective co!petition/ However, the for!er test will still
e i!portant due to the presu!ption of a do!inant position provided for " the #+,, although
the threshold for this presu!ption has een increased to 5%6
2 as alread" incorporated in the 01 Merger (egulation, ac7uisitions in stages, ie two or !ore
transactions which take place within a two8"ear period etween the sa!e persons or
undertakings shall e treated as one and the sa!e concentration arising on the date of the last
transaction
3 the for!er 9s!all !arkets e4e!ption9 fro! !erger filings has een a!ended fro! a 7uestion of
.urisdiction to an e4e!ption on sustance/ 2f a !erger concerns a !arket on which goods or
co!!ercial services have een offered for at least five "ears and which had a sales volu!e of
less than 01( 1:! in the last calendar "ear, the Federal )artel ;ffice *,undeskartella!t,
F);- in the past did not have .urisdiction/ 3ow the parties have to notif" de minimis !arket
cases in order for the F); to assess the !arket volu!e/ However, if the F);9s review
confir!s a !arket volu!e of less than 01( 1:!, the F); cannot lock the deal regardless of
the !erger9s i!pact on co!petition
4 the new rules intend to ease press !ergers/ First, the special thresholds for such !ergers have
een slightl" increased *see 7uestion < elow- although still !ost !ergers will likel" !eet the
special thresholds for this industr"/ Second, ac7uisitions of s!all and !ediu! press houses
which achieved annual deficits for three consecutive "ears, and which otherwise face
insolvenc" proceedings !a" not e locked " the F); if there is no other suitale ac7uirer
5 pulic health insurances are now su.ect to the !erger control/ However, the F); has to liaise
with the sector regulators if intends to lock a !erger/ Moreover, unlike in regular !erger cases
appeals against the F);9s decisions concerning health insurances are heard " the social
courts/
2n addition to the revision of the #+,, the F); currentl" revises its guidelines for #er!an !erger control
*(er!)latt *+r de+tschen +sions!ontrolle-/ 2t is e4pected that the new version will reflect and provide
guidance on the afore!entioned revisions/
Moreover, the F); is working on guidelines on do!estic effects in !erger cases *(er!)latt
,nlandsa+s-ir!+n.en in der +sions!ontrolle- of which it pulished a consultation draft in =ece!er 2%1$
*see 7uestion 5 elow-/
!. "nder German merger control law# is the control test the same as the $" concept o% &decisive
in%luence& '% not# how does it di%%er and what is the position in relation to &minority shareholdings&
Page $
>he control test of the #er!an !erger control regi!e is asicall" the sa!e as the 0uropean concept of
9decisive influence9/ >his was alread" the case efore the latest a!end!ents of the #+,, ut has een
underlined even !ore " further har!onising #er!an law with the 01 Merger (egulation/
However, there are still so!e differences etween the 01 and the #er!an !erger control regi!e?
6 first, co!panies should e aware that the definition of a concentration and, therefore the scope
of #er!an !erger control are roader than those of the 01M(/ #er!an law also covers the
ac7uisition of non8controlling !inorit" shareholdings/ >his includes the ac7uisition of shares in
another undertaking if the shares !eet the 2:6 threshold ased on the issued capital or the
voting rights of the target
7 under the 9catch8all clause9 of Sec/ $@*1- 3o/ 5 #+, an" other co!ination of undertakings
enaling to directl" or indirectl" e4ercise 9co!petitivel" significant influence9 on another
undertaking is covered/ Such co!petitivel" decisive influence !a" occur even elow a 2:6
shareholding if the ac7uirer is active on the sa!e or a verticall" linked !arket/ 2n the /%T0C
,nd+stries /"/&ordde+tsche /ffinerie /" case as well as in the /s!lepios/1h2n case !inorit"
shareholdings of 1$/@:6 and 1%/16, respectivel" alread" triggered a !erger filing to the F);/
However, in !ost cases this will onl" e the case regarding strategic investors, whereas
financial investors are rather unlikel" to e caught " this threshold unless the" alread" have
invest!ents in the sa!e industr"/
2t re!ains to e seen whether the 0uropean )o!!ission will e4tend the scope of the 01 Merger (egulation
to the ac7uisition of non8controlling !inorit" shareholdings in the future despite ongoing deate in #er!an"
on the lack of legal clarit" for co!panies whether or not to notif" the ac7uisition of !inorit" shareholdings/
(. Are )oint ventures caught by the national merger control provisions *including non-structural#
cooperative )oint ventures+
Aes, .oint ventures are caught " the #er!an !erger control provisions/
+hile the 01 Merger (egulation is onl" applicale to full8function .oint ventures *those perfor!ing on a
lasting asis all the functions of an autono!ous econo!ic entit"- the #er!an !erger control provisions also
appl" to non8full8function .oint ventures/ >herefore, the F); will review the .oint venture even if the
transaction does not constitute a concentration pursuant to Article $ of the 01 Merger (egulation although
the 01 !erger control thresholds are e4ceeded/
According to the #er!an Federal Supre!e )ourt *$+ndes.erichtshof, ,#H- .oint ventures are su.ect to
9dual control9? 0ven if the foundation of a .oint venture has achieved !erger control clearance, .oint ventures
where the parent co!panies and the .oint venture are active on the sa!e !arket *cooperative .oint ventures-
!a" also e assessed " Art/ 1%1*1- >F01 and its #er!an e7uivalent Sec/ 1 #+,/ >he F); in these cases
assess whether there could e a coordination of the .oint venture9s parent co!panies9 !arket ehaviour/
A .oint venture can e prohiited oth for !erger control reasons and for a restriction of Sec/ 1 #+,/ For
instance, the F); prohiited the proposed .oint venture of the two leading #er!an private8roadcasters (>L
and ProSieenSat/1 for Bideo on =e!and services in !erger control proceedings/ >he F); held that setting
up the &B would strengthen the parties9 do!inant position on the >B advertising !arket/ 2n contrast, the F);
cleared under !erger control provisions the Bideo on =e!and .oint venture 9"erman34s "old9 of the pulic
roadcasters A(= and C=F since the" had not do!inant position on the affected !arkets/ However, it
continued to e4a!ine the pro.ect under Sec/ 1 #+, and eventuall" locked the cooperation/ >he F); was
concerned that the .oint venture would result in a coordination of pricing and choice of videos/
2t should e noted that the dual control of .oint ventures involves two different tests on sustance? +hile the
!erger control test is whether there is a significant i!pedi!ent to effective co!petition, the coordination test
is *onl"- whether there is an appreciale restriction of co!petition/ Moreover, in Article 1%1 >F01DSec/ 1
#+, cases, the F); is not ound to a particular ti!e schedule *see 7uestion @-/ 2n fact, it even has initiated
such proceedings several "ears after having cleared a .oint venture in !erger control proceedings/
2n one of these cases the F); in 2%12 prohiited two che!icals co!panies *$rennta. and C" Chemi!alien
5oldin.- to continue their .oint venture C65 after having cleared the foundation ack in 1EE</ >he F); held
Page 5
that the continuation of the &B would lead to an undue infor!ation e4change and a coordination of the parent
co!panies9 !arket ehaviour/ However, the Higher (egional )ourt in =Fsseldorf in preli!inar" proceedings
in &ul" 2%1$ prohiited the F); to enforce the dissolution of the .oint venture/ >he )ourt 7uestioned the
F);9s reasoning in relation to coordinative effects and !ade it clear that the fact of a .oint shareholding of
two co!petitors in a .oint venture alone does not lead to coordinative effects infringing Article 1%1 >F01DSec/
1 #+,/ >hus, the F); has to de!onstrate concrete facts pursuant to which the operation of a .oint venture
would infringe Article 1%1 >F01 Sec/ 1 #+,/
,. -hat are the merger control thresholds and would a purely %oreign-to-%oreign transaction be
caught *commenting on any &e%%ects& doctrine/policy i% relevant+
(er.er control thresholds
A #er!an !erger control filing is in principle triggered if?
8 the co!ined aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned e4ceeded 01(
:%%! in the last usiness "ear prior to the transaction
9 the do!estic turnover of at least one undertaking concerned e4ceeded 01( 2:!, and
10 the do!estic turnover of another undertaking concerned e4ceeded 01( :!
3ote8when calculating turnover #er!an law considers all sales of affiliated group co!panies controlled "
the sa!e parent co!pan"/ 9)ontrol9 stands for the ailit" to e4ert decisive influence, eg " having the power
to e4ercise !ore than half the voting rights or to appoint !ore than half the !e!ers of the supervisor"
oardDodies legall" representing the undertaking *see 7uestion < for !ore details-/
As an e4e!ption fro! the !erger control regi!e, a filing is not re7uired if an undertaking which is not
dependent on another undertaking and whose worldwide turnover is less than 01( 1%!, !erges with
another undertaking/ >his clause is dee!ed to ease sales of co!panies " private persons, in particular
fa!il" usinesses/
Local effects test/forei.n%to%forei.n transactions
2n principle, #er!an law assu!es local effects if the revenues thresholds are !et/ >hus, foreign8to8foreign
transactions are in principle caught " #er!an !erger control law/ >his eco!es particularl" relevant in
case of a .oint venture of two foreign parent co!panies where the #er!an thresholds are onl" !et due to the
revenues of the parent co!panies and the .oint venture does not have an" presence or sales in #er!an"/ 2n
these particular cases, the parties !a" argue that the transaction does not have effects on co!petition in
#er!an"/
However, the F); in the past has een rather strict when assessing whether a transaction !ight have local
effects/ 2n the 0(C/Cisco case of 2%11, the F); ruled that the two co!panies should have notified the
foundation of a .oint venture which initiall" was not active in 0urope ut where *onl"- the parent co!panies
!et the #er!an filing thresholds and where oth had ranch offices in #er!an"/ >he F); concluded that
the corporate governance of the .oint venture did not prevent it fro! eco!ing active in #er!an", and in fact
so!e "ears later the co!pan" e4panded its usiness activities to #er!an"/
2n order to provide co!panies with !ore guidance on how to assess #er!an !erger control oligations, the
F); in =ece!er 2%1$ started a pulic consultation on its #uidelines on do!estic effects *(er!)latt
,nlandsa+s-ir!+n.en in der +sions!ontrolle-/ According to the draft #uidelines a foreign8to8foreign
transaction is alwa"s caught " #er!an !erger control if the target9s or the .oint venture9s do!estic turnover
e4ceeds 01( :!/ 2n contrast, if a .oint venture does not have an" usiness activities in #er!an" and the
.oint venture9s parent co!panies are no *potential- co!petitors on an" #er!an !arket, the transaction is not
dee!ed to have sufficient local effects within #er!an"/
2n less clear8cut cases which will likel" e the !a.orit" in practice, in particular where the parent co!panies
!a" have actual or potential overlaps of their usiness activities, it is !ore difficult for co!panies to
deter!ine the potential filing re7uire!ents/ >he F); #uidelines state that a case8"8case assess!ent
needs to consider the spill8over effects on the parent co!panies9 level, in particular if the co!ined !arket
Page :
shares of the parent co!panies e4ceed 1%6/ Moreover, the econo!ic i!portance of a .oint venture for the
parent co!panies will e considered/
>he #uidelines set out that in case of douts aout the effects within #er!an", co!panies in cases not
triggering an" co!petitive concerns !a" also notif" the !erger to the F); and leave the 7uestion of local
effects open/ Since co!panies are not oliged to fill out a length" for! when notif"ing !ergers in #er!an"
this !a" e a practical approach to provide parties with legal certaint" that the" co!plied with #er!an
!erger control law/ Should the F); e4clude local effects upon a notification parties !a" withdraw their filing
in order to cut the filing fee/
.. -here the )urisdictional thresholds are met# is noti%ication mandatory and must closing be
suspended pending clearance
Aes, pursuant to Sec/ $E *1- #+, a notification is !andator" if a transaction constitutes a concentration
pursuant to #er!an law and if the respective thresholds are !et/
)losing !ust e suspended until clearance or until e4pir" of the ti!e8li!it in a phase 22 proceeding *see
7uestion @ for !ore detail-/
;nl" in ver" rare cases and upon application a concentration can e put into effect efore clearance is
granted/ >his will likel" re7uire the parties to accept certain conditions *especiall" 9hold8separate8order9-/ >his
!ainl" involves cases in which otherwise the risk of insolvenc" is ver" high, eg in the case 7e+tsche
Post/trans%o%flex *2%%1- and /8+ida/7e+ta./$asalt *2%%$-/ 2n practice the F); prefers to e infor!all"
approached whether in such a situation an e4e!ption fro! the standstill oligation would e granted or
whether the F); would rather e prepared to review and clear an unprole!atic transaction within a ver"
short ti!efra!e *in so!e cases even within 25 hours if the notification is co!plete-/
/. Are there any speci%ic issues parties should be aware o% when compiling and calculating the
relevant turnover %or applying the )urisdictional thresholds
+hen calculating the worldwide and the do!estic turnover of the last usiness "ear parties need to consider
that intra8group sales and value8added ta4 are to e e4cluded/ However, in an outsourcing situation for!er
intra8group revenues are considered on an ar!9s length asis as the" will for! e4ternal turnover after
co!pletion of the transaction/
As stated aove in 7uestion 5, #er!an law considers all sales of affiliated group co!panies controlled " the
sa!e parent co!pan" *9control9 standing for the ailit" to e4ert decisive influence-/ 2n particular for financial
investors with a nu!er of portfolio co!panies it is re7uired to re7uest a revenue infor!ation reakdown of
all of their controlled invest!ents in order to deter!ine whether the #er!an revenue thresholds are !et/
>he seller9s revenues are generall" not taken into account/ ;nl" if the seller partl" re!ains a shareholder of
the target, e4ceeding at least a 2:6 stake or e4ercising *.oint- control, the seller for!s part" to the
transaction/
#er!an !erger control law estalishes special rules for calculating the relevant turnover in the following
areas?
11 the thresholds are higher for !ergers concerning the 9trade of goods9/ >rade of goods within this
conte4t !eans the s"ste!atic resale of unprocessed goods produced " third parties/
According to Sec/ $' *2- #+, onl" three 7uarters of the turnover shall e taken into account
for trade in goods
12 the thresholds for the press and radioD>B roadcasting industries are lower/ For !ergers
concerning the pulication, production and distriution of newspapers, !agaGines and parts
thereof the turnover has to e !ultiplied " the factor ', eg the do!estic 01( :! threshold
eco!es a 01( <2:,%%% threshold/ >he turnover of radio and television roadcasters
*including advertising- has to e !ultiplied " the of factor 2%, eg the do!estic 01( :!
threshold eco!es a 01( 2:%,%%% threshold/ ,efore the '
th
(evision of the #+, *see
7uestion 1- the factor 2% applied to oth press and roadcasting/ >he new calculation !ethod
has een introduced in order to ease a further concentration in the press seg!ent as a
response to increasing co!petition fro! other !edia offerings/ 2n addition, in the press sector a
Page <
specific 9failing fir! defence9 allows larger pulishers to ac7uire s!all and !ediu! co!petitors
in financial difficulties, if these pulishers faced ankruptc" otherwise *see 7uestion 1-/
13 turnover of anks will e calculated ased on the total a!ount of the proceeds pursuant to the
(egulation on the (endering of Accounts of )redit 2nstitutions
14 for insurance co!panies the turnover shall e replaced " the pre!iu! inco!e, ie inco!e fro!
insurance and reinsurance usiness including the portions ceded for cover
0. 's there a deadline %or %iling a noti%iable transaction and what is the timetable therea%ter %or review
by the 123
>here is no deadline for filing a notifiale transaction/ Parties can generall" notif" a transaction even efore
signing, eg ased on a Me!orandu! of 1nderstanding or Letter of 2ntent/ Bice versa, even after signing
there is no deadline for filing provided that the parties do not consu!!ate the transaction *even factuall"-
prior to clearance " the F);/
Timeta)le
>he #er!an !erger review process consists of two phases? Phase 2 starts with the receipt of a co!plete
!erger notification/ >he F); reviews the notified concentration within one !onth in phase 2/ >he F); is not
re7uired to wait for the one !onth period to lapse, and in practice the F); grants approval in !an" cases
prior to this period e4piring/ >he vast !a.orit" of the cases are cleared in phase 2/
;nl" if the F); has concerns regarding the transaction9s i!pact on effective co!petition it will initiate a !ore
in8depth anal"sis in a second phase/ Phase 22 can last up to four !onths after the initial notification/ 2f the
notif"ing parties consent, this four !onth period can e further e4tended/ 2f parties su!it co!!it!ents to
ease co!petitive concerns, the second phase investigation will e e4tended auto!aticall" " one !onth/
Further dela"s can occur due to the 9stop8the8clock9 !echanis! in case the notif"ing parties do not or not
co!pletel" repl" to an infor!ation re7uest of the F);/
4. -ho is responsible %or %iling a noti%iable transaction *noting also whether there is a speci%ic
%orm/document used and an applicable %iling %ee+
1esponsi)ilit3
According to #er!an law, all parties to a transaction are responsile for filing, ie the ac7uirer and the target
as well as the parent co!panies in a .oint venture situation/ 2n case of an asset deal or a share deal where
the ac7uirer e4ceeds the 2:6 or :%6 thresholds, the seller is also oliged to notif"/ However, in practice
there is generall" onl" one coordinated filing " the parties, usuall" the ac7uirer filing with the consent of all
other parties concerned/
orm
>here is no specific for! re7uired to notif" a transaction to the F);/ Pursuant to the statutor" re7uire!ents
of the #+,, parties need to provide the following infor!ation?
15 a su!!ar" of the transaction
16 a description of the parties involved and their affiliated co!panies
17 the parties9 revenues world8wide, within the 01 and within #er!an" *group level-
18 the co!petitive assess!ent of the transaction including !arket definition and !arket shares
19 infor!ation on other notifications to national authorities outside #er!an", and
20 for foreign co!panies, an authorised recipient within #er!an"
2t is reco!!ended that parties and their advisors review previous notifications to the F); or an" other
co!petition authorit" in order to provide consistent infor!ation on the parties and the !arkets the" are active
on/
ilin. fees
Page @
>he filing fee is set " the F); and connected to the co!ple4it" of the case/ 2n non8co!ple4 cases the
ad!inistrative fees will range !ost likel" etween 01( $,%%% and 01( 1:,%%%/ 2f the case is !ore co!ple4
*eg involves econo!ic anal"sis, re7uires consultations of other !arket participants- the fee would e higher/
>he highest possile fee is generall" set at 01( :%,%%% although in e4ceptional cases in which the
personnel and !aterial e4penses of the cartel authorit" are unusuall" high *as was the case regarding the
!erger of $5P $illiton/1io Tinto-, the F); !a" doule the fee up to 01( 1%%,%%%/ >he fee is onl" set after
ter!ination of the proceedings/
5. 6lease con%irm/comment on the penalties %or %ailing to noti%y or suspend transactions pending
clearance and the 123&s record/stance in terms o% pursuing parties %or %ailing to noti%y relevant
transactions *commenting# i% relevant# on any statute o% limitations regarding sanctions %or
in%ringements o% the applicable law+.
>he F); can fine undertakings for failing to notif" or for 9gun .u!ping9 with penalties up to 1%6 of last "ear9s
turnover of the entire worldwide group/
>here are several cases of fines for gun .u!ping and the F); vigorousl" enforces co!petition law in case of
reaches of the filing oligation/ 2n 2%%E, the F); fined a pulishing house 01( 5/1$! for ac7uiring a
co!petitor in 2%%1 without notif"ing the !erger/ 2n 2%%', the F); i!posed a penalt" of 01( 5/:! on Mars
for gun8.u!ping in #er!an" and onl" waiting for the authorisation in the 1S/
2n addition, even if the parties notified a transaction, the F); can fine the notif"ing parties up to 01(
1%%,%%% for failing to file a notification correctl" or co!pletel"/
Finall", transactions which are not properl" notified and cleared " the F); are void fro! a civil law
perspective unless the F); suse7uentl" closes its post8closing investigation without unwinding the !erger/
>he statute of li!itation regarding fines for failing to notif" or suspend transactions pending clearance are in
general five "ears/ 2n practice, however, a transaction which the parties failed to notif" !a" e su.ect to the
F);9s review for even longer, as the F); considers, although disputed " co!petition law"ers, the li!itation
period not to egin as long as the unlawful !erger e4ists/ For e4a!ple, in 2%%: the F); fined two regional
pulishers ten "ears after closing for not having notified a !erger/ 0ven if the F); refrains fro! fining
co!panies it !a" nevertheless initiate a post8closing review procedure even !an" "ears or decades after
the consu!!ation of the transaction/ Finall", fro! a civil law perspective a notifiale !erger re!ains void
unless the F); suse7uentl" approved it " a decision not to dissolve the concentration in a post8closing
review/
10. Are there any other &sta7eholders& other than the 1ederal 2artel 3%%ice *%or example# any &sector
regulators& who might have concurrent powers+
#er!an law provides for a procedure to appl" for a 9Ministerial Authorisation9 in case the F); prohiited a
!erger/ >he Federal Minister of 0cono!ic Affairs and 0nerg" shall, upon application, authorise a
concentration prohiited " the F); if, in a specific case, the restraint of co!petition is outweighed "
advantages to the econo!" as a whole following fro! the concentration, or if the concentration is .ustified "
an overriding pulic interest/
>his procedure allows a strict distinction etween purel" co!petition law8ased decisions " the F); and
!ore politicall" !otivated decisions " the Ministr"/ However, the procedure is 7uite co!ple4 and involves
the Monopolies )o!!ission, an independent advisor" od" for co!petition polic", which has to deliver an
opinion on the !atter/ 2n the last ten "ears there have een onl" four single applications for Ministerial
Authorisation out of which onl" one was authorised concerning the !erger of two hospitals/
Further!ore, the following sector regulators are involved in the !erger control procedure?
21 in the energ" sector the Federal 3etwork Agenc" *$+ndesnet*a.ent+r- is also involved in the
!erger control procedure
22 in the case of a !erger etween television or radio roadcasters the )o!!ission on
)oncentration in the Media *909- has to grant an approval/ Moreover, the State Media
Authorities *Landesmedienanstalten- are involved
Page '
23 in the case of a !erger etween health insurances certain regulator" authorities *eg
$+ndes'ersicher+n.samt: participate in the proceedings
24 a foreign investor outside the 01 who intends to purchase a sustantial shareholding in a
#er!an co!pan" which could raise pulic securit" concerns !a" voluntaril" appl" for a
certificate of non8o.ection to the Ministr" of 0cono!ic Affairs and 0nerg"/ >he Ministr" !a"
otherwise start an ex officio investigation
25 the ac7uisition of co!panies producing !ilitar" e7uip!ent all foreign co!panies *including 018
ased co!panies- need to e notified to the Ministr" of 0cono!ic Affairs and 0nerg"
11. -hat *i% any+ are the other &hot& merger control issues in Germany
,esides the '
th
(evision of the #+,, whose i!pact on #er!an !erger control proceedings in practice
re!ains to e seen, the Higher (egional )ourt of =Fsseldorf in March 2%15 decided in a case triggering
pulic attention that it is hardl" possile for a part" whose intended transaction was wrongfull" locked " the
F); to clai! da!ages/
>he hearing aid device producer #3 Store sued the F); for prohiiting the proposed ac7uisition of #3
Stores9 susidiar" " Phonak in 2%%@/ #3 Store clai!ed for da!ages of 01( 1/1n after the #er!an
Federal Supre!e )ourt *$+ndes.erichtshof- annulled the F);9s decision, holding that the F); erred in its
!erger anal"sis/ >he prere7uisites to clai! da!ages against the State are ver" high in #er!an"/ >he
plaintiff has to estalish that esides an unlawful decision the F); acted intentionall" or negligentl"/ >he
plaintiffs did not succeed with their argu!ents in this specific case/
2n addition, the F); applied several ti!es in recent "ears to the 0uropean )o!!ission for case referrals
fro! ,russels to the F);/ 2n particular, regarding !edia and co!!unication industr" transactions the F); is
keen to review the case the!selves, eg in the case Li)ert3 "lo)al/9a)el $aden%#;rttem)er. in 2%11/
However, the )o!!ission in earl" 2%15 re.ected the application of the F); to review the four8to8three
teleco!!unications !erger >elefonica =eutschlandD08plus- Hence, it is i!portant for parties to consider the
option and the chances for success of case referrals when assessing the likelihood for !erger control
approval " the )o!!ission or the F);/
Getting 8he 9eal 8hrough guide
A cop" of the latest #etting >he =eal >hrough !erger control guide for #er!an" is availale here?
#>=> Merger )ontrol 2%15 #er!an"
This article first appeared on LexisPSL Competition on 06/08/2012. Updated 18/06/2014
or a free trial of LexisPSL clic! here