Austria asphalt: What does the ECJ ruling change to the parent & subsidiary relationship?

Law & Economics workshop organised by Concurrences Review in partnership with McDermott Will & Emery and MAPP.


Jacques moderated the roundtable.

It is quite rare to have the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) rendering a decision about merger control. But it is even more rare to have the CJEU issue a decision against the theory advanced by the Commission. This is the case in Austria Asphalt, where the Court clarified a quite important aspect of merger control with which private practitioners have to deal on a daily basis.

The title of this conference (“Austria Asphalt: What does the ECJ ruling change to the parent & subsidiary relationship?”) is not entirely accurate. In fact, Austria Asphalt is about notification and jurisdictional issues. And more in particular, it is about the interpretation of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”) that relate to changes in the creation and control of a joint venture (“JV”). Indeed, both the CJEU and Advocate General (“AG”) Kokott considered that both provisions are not self-explanatory.

Photos © Emilie Gomez

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.



  • European Commission (Brussels)
  • Anheuser-Busch InBev (Bremen)
  • Paris School of Economics
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Brussels)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)