Book contents
5 - Merger control
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2013
Summary
Introduction
Merger control is the third pillar of EU competition law. At EU level the Commission plays the central role in the control of concentrations. Subject to judicial review by the General Court and the ECJ the Commission decides whether a merger notified by the interested parties may be implemented. In most jurisdictions, including the EU, merger control is designed as an ex ante control which shall primarily prevent merging undertakings from reinforcing or establishing a dominant position enabling them to exercise market power that could be harmful for the process of undisturbed competition.
The purpose of merger control
The main aim of merger control is to prevent mergers leading to the creation or reinforcement of a dominant position and thus depriving consumers of benefits resulting from effective competition such as low prices, high-quality products, wide selection of goods and services, and innovation. Mergers may impede effective competition by altering the market structure in such a way that companies on a relevant market are more likely to coordinate and raise their prices. Another detrimental effect to competition may be a reduction of the companies’ abilities and/or incentives to compete which may result in higher prices or a lack of innovation. Therefore the most important goal of merger policy is to avoid the creation of a market structure that would significantly facilitate coordination of market behaviour between different market players. Contrary to the ex post control of abusive market practices by dominant undertakings under Article 102 TFEU, EU merger control is designed to preclude undertakings from creating a dominant position which might in future enable them to abuse their market power to the detriment of consumers.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- An Introduction to EU Competition Law , pp. 242 - 308Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013
References
, ‘The Pursuit of National Champions: The Intersection of Competition Law and Industrial Policy’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 172Google Scholar
Commission decision of 8 May 2000, Case COMP/M.1846 – Glaxo Wellcome/SmithKline Beecham, available at .
AstraZeneca/Novartis, OJ No. L 110 of 16 April 2004
Commission decision of 26 January 2001, Case COMP/M.2208 – Chevron/Texaco, available at .
Commission decision of 12 June 2006, Case COMP/M.4048 – Sonae Industria/Tarkett/JV, available at
Commission decision of 24 July 2002, Case COMP/M.3071 – Carnival Corporation/P&O Princess II, available at .
Commission decision of 13 September 1991, Case IV/M.130 – Delta Air Lines/PanAm, available at
Commission decision of 23 December 2002, Case COMP/M.2857 – ECS/IEH, available in French at .
Commission decision of 28 July 2006, Case COMP/M.4225 – Celsa/Fundia, available at .
Bosh/Rexroth, OJ No. L 43 of 13 February 2004
Commission decision of 23 August 1995, Case IV/M.625 – Nordic Capital/Transpool, available at .
GC (23 February 2006), Case T-282/02 – Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission [2006] ECR, II-319, paras. 102–109
Commission decision of 26 February 2007, Case COMP/M.4521 – LGI/Telenet, available at , para. 9
GC (23 February 2006), Case T-282/02 – Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission, [2006] ECR, II-319, para. 107.
Commission decision of 26 February 2007, Case COMP/M.4521 – LGI/Telenet, available at , paras. 11 et seq.
Commission decision of 25 September 1992, Case IV/M.258 – CCIE/GTE, available at .
Commission decision of 8 May 2002, Case COMP/M.2777 – Cinven Limited/Angel Street Holding, available at .
Commission decision of 3 August 1993, Case IV/M.343 – Societé Générale/Générale de Banque, available in French at .
GC (23 February 2006, Case T-282/02 – Cementenbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission [2006] ECR II-319, para. 67.
Commission decision of 13 November 1997, Case IV/M.975 – Albacom/BT/ENI/Mediaset, available at , para. 12
Commission decision of 20 December 2002, Case COMP/M. 2992 – Brenntag/Biesterfeld/JV, available in German at .
Commission decision of 30 October 2002, Case COMP/M.2938 – SNPE/MBDA/JV, available at .
Commission decision of 15 April 1996, Case IV/M.722 – Teneo/Merrill Lynch/Bankers Trust, available at .
Commission decision of 11 April 1995, Case IV/M.573 – ING/Barings, available at .
Commission decision of 11 December 1995, Case IV/M.669 – Charterhouse/Porterbrook, available at .
GC (23 February 2006), Case T-282/02 – Cementenbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission [2006] ECR, II-319, para. 115.
GC (14 July 2006), Case T-417/05 – Endesa v Commission [2006] ECR, II-2533, para. 99.
Commission decision of 30 June 1993, Case IV/M.346 – JCSAT/SAJAC, available at .
Commission decision of 27 June 2007, Case COMP/M.4439 – Ryanair/Aer Lingus, available at .
Commission decision of 27 June 2007, Case COMP/M.4439 – Ryanair/Aer Lingus, available at , paras. 20–31.
, ‘Cooperation between National Competition Authorities in the EU in Multijurisdictional Merger Cases. The Best Practices of the EU Merger Working Group’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 3 (2012), 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission decision of 6 February 2009, Case COMP/M.5446 – Deutsche Bank/Postbank, available in German at .
and , ‘Pre-Notification Referral under the EC Merger Regulation: Simplifying the Route to the One-Stop Shop’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 167Google Scholar
Commission decision of 23 May 2005, Case COMP/M.3692 – Reuters/Telerate, available at .
Commission decision of 3 July 2008, Case COMP/ M.5112 – REWE/Plus Discount, available at .
Commission decision of 8 January 2002, Case COMP/M.2621, SEB/Moulinex, available in French at ,
Commission decision of 11 December 2006, Case COMP/M.4465 – Thrane&Thrane/Nera, available at .
Commission decision of 31 March 2010, Case COMP/M.5828 – Procter & Gamble/Sara Lee Air Care, available at .
and , ‘Recent Developments in EU Merger Control’, Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 3 (2012), 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission decision of 20 September 1995, Case IV/M.553 – RTL/Veronica/Endemol, OJ No. L 134 of 5 June 1996, p. 32
Endemol v Commission [1999]
ECJ (3 June 2008), Case C-196/07 – Commission v Spain [2008] ECR I-41.
and , ‘Application of Article 21 of the Merger Regulation in the E.ON/Endesa Case’, Competition Policy Newsletter (No. 2, 2008), 1Google Scholar
ECJ (10 July 2008), Case C-413/06 – Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951, para. 48.
and , ‘The Joint Venture SonyBMG: Final Ruling by the European Court of Justice’, Competition Policy Newsletter (No. 2, 2009), 68Google Scholar
and , ‘The Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines Merger: Potentially Anticompetitive Co-operation as a Counterfactual to Assess a Significant Impediment to Effective Competition under the EC Merger Regulation?’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 491Google Scholar
Commission decision of 28 August 2009, Case COMP/M.5440 – Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines, available at , para. 60
ECJ (31 March 1998), Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 – France and Others v Commission (‘Kali & Salz’) [1998] ECR I-1375, para. 143.
GC (22 March 2000), Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97 – Coca-Cola v Commission [2000] ECR II-1733, para. 82.
ECJ (21 February 1973), Case 6/72 – Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company v Commission [1973] ECR 215, para. 32.
GC (12 June 1997), Case T-504/93 – Tiercé Ladbroke v Commission [1997] ECR II-923, para. 81.
Commission decision of 17 December 2008, Case COMP/M.5046 – Friesland Foods/Campina, available at .
Commission decision of 3 February 1999, Case IV/M.1221 – Rewe/Meinl, OJ No. L 274 of 23 October 1999, p. 1, para. 9.
ECJ (14 February 1978), Case 27/76 – United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paras. 31 and 34.
Commission decision of 22 July 1992, Case IV/M.190 – Nestlé/Perrier, OJ No. L 356 of 5 December 1992, p. 1, paras. 10 et seq.
Commission decision of 24 July 2002, Case COMP/M.3071 – Carnival Corporation/P&O Princess II, available at , paras. 32 et seq.
Commission decision of 27 April 1992, Case IV/M.202 – Thorn EMI/Virgin Music, available at ;
Commission decision of 2 September 2002, Case COMP/M.2883 – Bertelsmann/Zomba, available at , para. 11
Commission decision of 28 August 2009, Case COMP/M.5440 – Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines, available at , para. 11
Commission decision of 15 July 2005, Case COMP/M.3732 – Procter & Gamble/Gillette, available at , paras. 8 et seq.
, ‘Markets without Substitutes: Substitution versus Constraints as the Key to Market Definition’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 122Google Scholar
, ‘The Hypothetical Monopolist Test: What It Can and Cannot Tell You’, European Competition Law Review, 23 (2002), 354Google Scholar
, ‘The Concept of Market Definition and the SSNIP Test in the Merger Appraisal’, European Competition Law Review, 26 (2005), 207Google Scholar
Commission decision of 17 July 2008, Case COMP/M.5114 – Pernod Ricard/V&S, available at , para. 29
and , ‘Market Definition in Recent EC Merger Investigations: The Role of Empirical Analysis’, Concurrences, No. 3 (2009), p. 1Google Scholar
Gencor/Lonrho, OJ No. L 11 of 14 January 1997
Commission decision of 27 June 2007, Case COMP/M.4439 – Ryanair/Aer Lingus, , para. 166
Commission decision of 22 November 2004, Case COMP/M.3570 – Piaggio/Aprilia, available in Italian at .
Commission decision of 24 July 2002, Case COMP/M.3071 – Carnival Corporation/P&O Princess II, available at .
Commission decision of 14 November 1995, Case IV/M.603 – Crown Cork & Seal/Carnaud Metalbox, OJ No. L 75 of 23 March 1996, p. 38, para. 19.
ECJ (21 February 1973), Case 6/72 – Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company v Commission [1973] ECR 215.
Commission decision of 14 May 2008, Case COMP/M.4854 – TomTom/Tele Atlas, available at , paras. 23–7.
Commission decision of 24 March 2004, Case COMP/C-3/37.792 – Microsoft, available at , para. 418
and , ‘A Tale of Two Constraints: Assessing Market Power in Wholesale Markets’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 84Google Scholar
ECJ (14 February 1978), Case 27/76 – United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paras. 10–11.
GC (21 October 1997), Case T-229/94 – Deutsche Bahn v Commission [1997] ECR II-1689, para. 92.
and et al., ‘Ineos/Kerling: Raising the Standard for Geographic Market Definition?’, Competition Policy Newsletter, 1 (2008), 61Google Scholar
Commission decision of 13 July 2005, Case COMP/M. 3625 – Blackstone/Acetex, OJ No. L 312 of 29 November 2005, p. 60.
Commission decision of 3 May 2000, Case COMP/M.1671 – Dow Chemical/Union Carbide, OJ No. L 245 of 14 September 2001, p. 1.
Commission decision of 2 September 2003, Case COMP/M.3083 – GE/Instrumentarium, OJ No. L 109 of 16 April 2004, p. 1, para. 82.
Commission decision of 20 September 1995, Case IV/M.553 – RTL/Veronica/Endemol, OJ No. L 134 of 5 June 1996, p. 32, paras. 25 and 26
Endemol v Commission [1999]
Commission decision of 25 June 2008, Case COMP/M.5121 – News Corp/Premiere, available at , para. 25
Commission decision of 24 April 1996, Case IV/M.619 – Gencor/Lonrho, OJ No. L 11 of 14 January 1997, p. 30, para. 72.
Commission decision of 26 January 2011, Case COMP/M.5984 – Intel/McAfee, available at , para. 33
Commission decision of 13 March 2004, Case COMP/M.3314 – Air Liquide/Messer Targets, available at .
Commission decision of 13 July 2005, Case COMP/M.3653 – Siemens/VA Tech, summary of the decision in OJ No. L 353 of 13 December 2006, p. 19.
Commission decision of 18 December 2009, Case COMP/M.5664 – Bilfinger Berger/MCE, available at , paras. 16 et seq.
Commission decision of 7 January 2004, Case COMP/M.2978 – Lagardère/Natexis/VUP, available at , para. 296
Commission decision of 25 June 2008, Case COMP/M.5121 – News Corp/Premiere, available at , paras. 24–7.
Commission decision of 28 June 2004, Case COMP/M.3446 – UNIQA/Mannheimer, available in German at , para. 13
Commission decision of 9 March 1999, Case IV/M.1313 – Danish Crown/Vestjyske Slagterier, OJ No. L 20 of 25 January 2000, p. 1, paras. 50 et seq.
Commission decision of 28 May 2004, Case COMP/M.3415 – CRH/Semapa/Secil JV, available at , paras. 16 et seq.
Commission decision of 3 July 2008, Case COMP/M.5112 – REWE/Plus Discount, available at .
Commission decision of 29 September 1999, Case IV/M.1383 – Exxon/Mobil, OJ No. L 103 of 7 April 2004, p. 1, para. 812.
Commission decision of 21 December 2005, Case COMP/M. 3968 – Sovion/Südfleisch, , paras. 16 et seq.
Commission decision of 5 September 2007, Case COMP/M.4533 – SCA/P&G (European tissue business), available at , paras. 38–41.
and , European Community Law of Competition (Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2008), p. 293Google Scholar
ECJ (14 February 1978), Case 27/76 – United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207.
and , ‘The Impact of the New Substantive Test in European Merger Control’, European Competition Journal, 6 (2006), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Reform of the European Merger Regulation in the Aftermath of the Airtours Case – the Eagerly Expected Debate: SLC vs. Dominance Test’, European Competition Law Review, 26 (2005), 37Google Scholar
and , ‘EU Merger Control Five Years after the Introduction of the SIEC Test: What Explains the Drop in Enforcement Activity?,’ European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 565Google Scholar
Commission decision of 26 April 2006, Case COMP/M.3916 – T-Mobile Austria/Tele.ring, summary of the decision in OJ No. L 88 of 29 March 2007, p. 44.
, ‘T-Mobile Austria/tele.ring: Remedying the Loss of Maverick’, Competition Policy Newsletter, No. 2 (2006), 46Google Scholar
, ‘Are Merger Control and Article 82 EC in the Same Market? The Assessment of Mergers which Facilitate Exclusionary Conduct under EC Merger Control’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 409Google Scholar
ECJ (31 March 1998), Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 – France and Others v Commission (‘Kali & Salz’) [1998] ECR I-1375, paras. 90 et seq.
GC (23 February 2006), Case T-282/02 – Cementenbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission [2006] ECR II-319, para. 201.
GC (28 April 1999), Case T-221/95 – Endemol v Commission [1999] ECR II-1299, para. 134
ECJ (13 February 1979), Case 85/76 – Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paras. 40–1.
Commission decision of 21 September 1995, Case IV/M.632 – Rhône Poulenc Rorer/Fisons, available at , para. 51
Commission decision of 27 July 2001, Case COMP/M.2337 – Nestlé/Ralston Purina, available at , paras. 48 et seq.
Commission decision of 3 February 1999, Case IV/M.1221 – Rewe/Meinl, OJ No. L 274 of 23 October 1999, p. 1.
Commission decision of 16 April 2008, Case COMP/M.5008 – Vivendi/Activision, available at .
Commission decision of 11 March 2008, Case COMP/M.5031 – ACE/CICA, available at , para. 24
GC (9 July 2007), Case T-282/06 – Sun Chemical Group and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-2149, para. 138.
and , ‘Collective Dominance under EC Merger Control: After Airtours and the Introduction of Unilateral Effects is there Still a Future for Collective Dominance?’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 148Google Scholar
and , ‘Assessing Unilateral Effects in Practice. Lessons from GE/Instrumentarium’, European Competition Law Review, 26 (2005), 205Google Scholar
Commission decision of 27 June 2007, Case COMP/M.4439 – Ryanair/Aer Lingus, available at , para. 542
Commission decision of 31 January 2003, Case COMP/M.3060 – UCB/Solutia, available at , paras. 41 et seq.
Commission decision of 17 October 2001, Case COMP/M.2187 – CVC/Lenzing, OJ No. L 82 of 19 March 2004, p. 20, paras. 247 et seq.
Commission decision of 21 January 2010, Case COMP/M.5529 – Oracle/Sun Microsystems, available at ,
and et al., ‘Oracle/Sun Microsystems: The Challenge of Reviewing a Merger Involving Open Source Software, Competition Policy Newsletter, No. 2 (2010), 20Google Scholar
, , and , ‘The Emerging Role of Open-source Software in Merger Analysis’, European Competition Law Review, 32 (2011), 323Google Scholar
ECJ (10 July 2008), Case C-413/06 – Bertelsmann AG & Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951, para. 120.
GC (6 June 2002), Case T-342/99 – Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, para. 62
ECJ (10 July 2008), Case C-413/06 – Bertelsmann AG & Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951, paras. 123 and 124.
Commission decision of 23 September 2008, Case COMP/M.4980 – ABF/GBI Business, available at .
and et al., ‘ABF/GBI Business: Coordinated Effects Baked Again’, Competition Policy Newsletter, No. 1 (2009), 91Google Scholar
Commission decision of 21 August 2007, Case COMP/M.4523 – Travelport/Wordspan, summary of the decision in OJ No. L 314 of 1 December 2007, p. 21.
Commission decision of 6 June 2006, Case COMP/M.4141 – Linde/BOC, available at , para. 192
ECJ (10 July 2008), Case C-413/06 – Bertelsmann AG & Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951, para. 125.
Omya/J.M. Huber PCC, summary of the decision in OJ No. L 72 of 13 March 2007
Commission decision of 3 February 1999, Case IV/M.1221 – Rewe/Meinl, OJ No. L 274 of 23 October 1999, p. 1.
Commission decision of 9 July 1998, Case IV/M.308 – Kali & Salz/MdK/Treuhand, available in German at .
ECJ (31 March 1998), Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 – France and Others v Commission (‘Kali & Salz’) [1998] ECR I-1375.
, ‘Bidding Markets and Competition Law in the European Union and the United Kingdom’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 16, 89Google Scholar
GC (23 February 2006), Case T-282/02 – Cementenbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission [2006] ECR II-319, para. 219.
Commission decision of 4 July 2006, Case M.4000 – Inco/Falconbridge, available at , paras. 529 et seq.
, ‘The Efficiency Defence in EC Merger Control’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 370Google Scholar
and , ‘Fuelling the Debate? The Role of Econometrics in Statoil/JET’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 222Google Scholar
, ‘The European Commission’s New Guidelines on the Assessment of Non-Horizontal Mergers: Great Expectations Disappointed’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 221Google Scholar
and , ‘Non-horizontal Mergers in the Common Market: Assessment under the Commission’s Guidelines and Beyond’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 480Google Scholar
, ‘(Fore)closing the Gap: The Commission’s Draft Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 1Google Scholar
and , ‘Non-horizontal Mergers in the Common Market: Assessment under the Commission’s Guidelines and Beyond’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 480Google Scholar
, ‘Conglomerate Merger Analysis – the Legal Context: How the European Court’s Standard of Proof Put an End to the Ex Ante Assessment of Leveraging’, Zeitschrift für Wettsewerbsrecht, (2007), 482Google Scholar
and , ‘Nokia/NAVTEQ – Navigating the Non-horizontal Merger Guidelines’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 487Google Scholar
et al., ‘Google/DoubleClick: The First Test for the Commission’s Non-horizontal Merger Guidelines’, Competition Policy Newsletter, No. 2 (2008), 53Google Scholar
Commisison decision of 25 March 2011, Case COMP/M.6128 – Blackstone/Mivisa, available at .
Commission decision of 25 June 2008, Case COMP/M.5121 – News Corp/Premiere, available at , paras. 64 et seq.
and , ‘Draining Liquidity: A Novel Vertical Effect in Electricity Mergers?’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 187Google Scholar
General Electric/Honeywell, OJ No. L 48 of 18 February 2004
GC (14 December 2005), Case T-210/01 – General Electric v Commission [2005] ECR II-5575.
, and , ‘The GE/Honeywell Judgment and the Assessment of Conglomerate Effects: What’s New in the EC Practice?’, European Competition Law Review, 6 (2006), 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Economic Analysis and Judicial Review: The CFI on GE/Honeywell’, Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht (2006), 139Google Scholar
ECJ (15 February 2005), Case C-12/03 P – Commission v Tetra Laval, [2005] ECR I-987, para. 44.
, ‘Assessment of the Non-Horizontal Mergers: Is there a Chance for the Efficiency Defence in EC Merger Control?’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 529Google Scholar
Commission decision of 6 October 2004, case COMP/M.3099 – Areva/Urenco/JV, summary of the decision in OJ No. L 61 of 2 March 2006, p. 11.
Commission decision of 19 October 2011, Case COMP/M.6214 – Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung, available at
Commission decision of 23 November 2011, Case COMP/M.6203 – Western Digital/Viviti Technologies, nyp, see press release at .
GC (6 July 2010), Case T-411/07 – Aer Lingus Group v Commission [2010] ECR II-3691, para. 83.
and , ‘Treatment of Minority Acquisitions under EU and International Merger Control’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 436Google Scholar
, ‘Two-step Transaction Structures in the Context of the EC Merger Regulation: To Have or to Hold?’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 238.Google Scholar
GC (13 September 2010), Case T-279/04 – Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission [2010] ECR II-185, paras. 133–4
Commission decision of 10 June 2009, Case COMP/M.4994 – Electrabel/Compagnie Nationale du Rhône, available at ;
ECJ (10 June 2008), Case C-413/06 – Bertelsmann AG & Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951, paras. 63–66.
GC (22 October 2002), Case T-310/01 – Schneider Electric v Commission [2002] ECR II-4071, paras. 437 et seq.
Commission decision of 26 January 2011, Case M.5830 – Olympic/Aegean Airlines, summary of the decision in OJ No. C 195 of 3 July 2012, p. 11.
and , ‘The Merger Remedies Study: In Divestiture We Trust?’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 443Google Scholar
and , ‘The Revised Merger Remedies Notice: Some Comments’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 281Google Scholar
Commission decision of 6 January 2010, Case COMP/M.5644 – Kraft Foods/Cadbury, available at .
Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines, summary of the decision in OJ No. C 16 of 22 January 2010
, ‘Non-structural Remedies in EU Merger Control’, European Competition Law Review, 27 (2006), 209Google Scholar
, ‘The Use of Arbitration in EC Merger Control: Latest Developments’, European Competition Law Review, 28 (2007), 673Google Scholar
, ‘Structural versus Behavioural Remedies in Merger Control: A Case-by-Case Analysis’, European Competition Law Review, 30 (2009), 36Google Scholar
Commission decision of 10 June 2009, Case COMP/M.4994 – Electrabel/Compagnie Nationale du Rhône, available at ; currently under appeal to GC, case T-332/09.
ECJ (25 September 2003), Case C-170/02 – Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser and Others v Commission [2003] ECR I-9889.
(6 June 2002), Case T-342/99 – Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585
GC (22 October 2002), Case T-310/01 – Schneider Electric v Commission [2002] ECR II-4071
GC (25 October 2002), Case T-5/02 – Tetra Laval v Commission [2002] ECR II-4381.
GC (30 September 2003), Case T-158/00 – ARD v Commission [2003] ECR II-3825, paras. 61 et seq.
GC (8 July 2003), Case T-374/00 – Verband der freien Röhrenwerke and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-2275, para. 51.
GC (3 April 2003), Case T-342/00 – Petrolessence and SG2R v Commission [2003] ECR II-1161, para. 41.
GC (28 October 1993), Case T-83/92 – Zunis Holding and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-1169.
ECJ (31 March 1998), Case 68/94 – France and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, paras. 48 et seq.
GC (27 April 1995), Case T-12/93 – Comité central d’entreprise de la société anonyme Vittel v Commission [1995] ECR II-1247, para. 50.
GC (12 October 2011), Case T-224/10 – Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission, nyr, paras. 27 et seq.
ECJ (10 July 2008), Case C-413/06 – Bertelsmann AG & Sony Corporation of America v Impala [2008] ECR I-4951, para. 145.
, ‘The Impala Case: A Quiet Conclusion but a Lasting Legacy’, European Competition Law Review, 31 (2010), 261Google Scholar
GC (3 April 2003), Case T-119/02 – Royal Philips Electronics v Commission [2003] ECR II-1433, paras. 285 and 343.
GC (11 July 2007), Case T-351/03 – Schneider Electric v Commission, [2007] ECR II-2231, para. 240.
GC (12 October 2011), Case T-224/10 – Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats/Commission, nyr, para. 80.
, ‘The Evolution of the Action for Damages against the European Union and Its Place in the System of Judicial Protection’, Common Market Law Review, 48 (2011), 695Google Scholar
GC (11 July 2007), Case T-351/03 – Schneider Electric v Commission [2003] ECR II-2237.
and , ‘Sorry, But There’s Nothing We Can Do to Help: Schneider II and the Extra-contractual Liability of the European Commission in Merger Cases’, European Competition Law Review, 29 (2008), 151Google Scholar
GC (9 September 2008), Case T-212/03 – MyTravel v Commission [2008] ECR II-1967.
ECJ (16 July 2009), Case C-440/07 P – Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413.
GC (11 July 2007), Case T-351/03 – Schneider Electric v Commission [2003] ECR II-2237, para. 322.
ECJ (16 July 2009), Case C-440/07 P – Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413, paras. 212 et seq.
, ‘Case Comment, C-440/07 P Schneider Electric SA v. Commission’, Common Market Law Review, 49 (2011), 907Google Scholar
, ‘Damages Actions under the EC Merger Regulation, Common Market Law Review, 45 (2007), 101Google Scholar