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

Conférence-déjeuner Droit et Économie organisée par la Revue Concurrences en partenariat avec les cabinets Mc Dermott Will & Emery et 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

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.



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