Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:38:58.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of the EC Merger Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Dan Goyder CBE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In September 2000 a celebratory meeting was jointly organised in Brussels by the EC Directorate General for Competition (the former DGIV) and the International Bar Association, to mark the tenth anniversary of the implementation of Regulation 4064/89 which set up the EC system of merger control. As is usually the case at birthday parties, the emphasis was on the success already achieved by the celebrant rather than on any of its possible shortcomings! Much was said about the sound foundations laid in the years immediately before the Regulation was adopted, when a range of opinion was sought from all around the Community on how its procedures should be set up, drawing on the experience of officials and lawyers in many Member States as well as the USA. Tribute was also rightly paid at the celebrations to the proactive role of Commission officials in the Merger Task Force especially during its early years, when its traditions of a user-friendly approach and the positive use of the pre-notification period were established.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 3 , 2000 , pp. 151 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Regulation was adopted by the Council on 21 December 1989 and came into force on 21 September 1990.

2 Though the Commission made strenuous efforts, which were partially successful, to utilise both Articles 81 and 82 for this purpose. Europemballage and Continental Can v. Commission, Case 6/72 [1973] ECR 215: CMLR 199 (Art. 82): BAT v. Commission and Philip Morris Cases 142 and 156/84 [1987] ECR 4487: [1988][ 4 CMLR 24 (Art. 81).

3 A fourteenth blocking decision was issued early in 2001. SCA/Metsa Tissue. Case IV/M2097.

4 Case IV/M053 [1991] 4 CMLR M2.

5 Case IV/M 469 [1994] OJ C364/1.

6 Case IV/M 490 [1995] OJ C246: 5 CMLR 237.

7 Case IV/M 553 [1996] OJ C134/32 [1995] 5 CMLR 26.

8 Case IV/M 619 [1997] OJ L 11/30: Case T-102/96 [1999] 4 CMLR 971.

9 Case IV/M 784 [1997] OJ L 110/53 Case T-22/97 [2000] 4 CMLR 335.

10 Case IV/M 774.

11 Case IV/M890.

12 Case IV/M 993 [1999] 4 CMLR 700

13 Case IV/M 1027 [1999] 4 CMLR 700.

14 Case IV/M 1672.

15 Case IV/M 1741.

16 Case IV/M 1524 [2000 OJ L 93/1 5 CMLR 494 (now on appeal to the CFI).

17 [2001] OJ C68/3.

18 Case IV/M 837 [1997] OJ L336/16.

19 Council Regulation 1310/97 [1997] OJ L 180/1.

20 Case IV/M 2044 The Competition Commission report was published in January 2001 (Cm5014). On 23 May 2001 a Judicial review application in the High Court in London was successful in having the report annulled in respect of the remedy recommended, on the grounds of procedural irregularity, and the choice of remedy put back in the hands of the Secretary of State.

21 Whilst the opinion of the Advisory Committee is sometimes published (Art.l9(7)) it is hard to see the value of this without knowing the terms of the draft decision so commented upon.

22 The Merger Control (Simplified Procedure) Notice [2000] OJ C217/32: 5 CMLR 774.

23 Case IV/M 1383.