White & Case (Brussels)

Cornelius Börner

White & Case (Brussels)

Cornelius Börner is an associate at White & Case LLP. He joined White & Case in 2016 and is a member of the firm’s EU law practice. Cornelius advises clients on all aspects of German and European antitrust law. As part of his legal training, Cornelius Börner gathered work experience at a law firm focusing on competition law before joining White & Case.


Auteurs associés

White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Washington)
Suffolk University Law School
White & Case (Riyadh)
White & Case (New York)


1262 Bulletin

Katarzyna Czapracka, Tilman Kuhn, Cornelius Börner, Mark Powell The EU Court of Justice holds that the Commission needs to show based on a "cogent and consistent body of evidence" that a merger will result in a significant impediment to effective competition before it blocks the transaction or imposes remedies (Telefónica UK / Hutchison 3G UK)


The EU Court of Justice in the CK Telecoms ruling has addressed key questions of EU merger control, including the standard of proof for the European Commission to challenge a merger, the assessment of mergers below the dominance threshold ("gap cases"), the concepts of "closeness of (...)

Nicholas Forwood, Jérémie Jourdan, Cornelius Börner Judicial review & burden of proof in unilateral practice cases : An overview of EU and national case law


The timing of this latest work in the impressive series of Concurrences projects could hardly have been more apt. 2020 was a bumper year, in both EU and national courts, for judgments involving judicial review of enforcement decisions in unilateral cases. At the same time, however, of the most significant unilateral cases pending before the General Court, three – Intel (on renvoi), Google (shopping) and Google (Android) are, at the time of writing, still in délibéré, with judgments expected later this year or next. Lawyers, economists and, above all, businesses at risk of being regarded as dominant, especially in the digital sector, will be looking to the judgments in these cases, each of which has its distinctive facts, to clarify the analytical framework for determining whether, and specifically why, unilateral conduct of a dominant undertaking crosses the – sometimes all too obscure – line into transgression. It, therefore, seemed to the Editors that, while waiting for these three judgments (and then, in all probability, the results of any appeals), many practitioners might find it useful to look back over recent years to see how the judicial review of decisions of competition authorities, both Commission and national (NCAs), has evolved.



Total des visites

Nombre de lectures par contribution

Nombre de contributions

Classement de l'auteur
En nombre de contributions
En nombre total de visites
En nombre moyen de visites
Envoyer un message