Rachel Brandenburger, Thomas Janssens, Apr 19, 2007
In its Impala judgment last year, the Court of First Instance annulled a European Commission unconditional merger clearance decision for the first time. As a result, the Commission is having to carry out a new investigation into a transaction that closed over two years ago. In this judgment, the Court applied the three-limbed test for collective dominance from Airtours judgment. But this time it assessed strengthening, as opposed to creation, of collective dominance. Importantly, the Court made it clear that the Commission must base a clearance on equally solid grounds as a prohibition. We examine a number of the fundamental issues that the Impala judgment has raised. These have significance beyond the factual context of the case itself, both for the way the Commission must conduct its investigations and for the role of judicial review by the EC courts. We conclude by suggesting some changes in Court and Commission practices that would, we believe, strengthen the effectiveness of EC merger control.
Featured News
Carey Bolsters Competition Law Team With New Senior Counsel
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
TikTok US Sale Could Deliver $10 Billion Windfall to the United States
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
States Press Ahead With Live Nation Antitrust Trial After Federal Settlement
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
US Pulls Back Draft Regulation Targeting Global AI Chip Shipments
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
Selecta and Bondholders Ask US Court to Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit Over Creditor Pact
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece