CASE COMMENTS: MERGERS – INFLUENCE ON CARTEL CASES

Regulation 139/2004: The Court of Justice of the European Union increasingly refers to merger notions and logic in cartel litigations (Sociedad de Gestión y Participación, De Nederlandsche Bank NV ; De Nederlandsche Bank, Sociedad de Gestión y Participación, Samsung SDI, Toshiba)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Although the period under review did not give the Union judge the opportunity to rule on a merger decision, we take this opportunity to illustrate the "magistracy of influence" of merger law, and more particularly of its basic regulation 139/2004, on antitrust law. Merger control in the insurance sector Already in his Opinion delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case C-18/14, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi had the opportunity to base his reasoning on Regulation 139/2004. This reference is all the more interesting in that it raised, in principle, but not in the present case, the question of the acquisition of a minority, but qualified, shareholding in an

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.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • University Paris II Panthéon‑Assas

Quotation

Dominique Berlin, Regulation 139/2004: The Court of Justice of the European Union increasingly refers to merger notions and logic in cartel litigations (Sociedad de Gestión y Participación, De Nederlandsche Bank NV ; De Nederlandsche Bank, Sociedad de Gestión y Participación, Samsung SDI, Toshiba), 9 September 2015, Concurrences N° 1-2016, Art. N° 77666, pp. 130-133

Visites 232

All reviews