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
EU’s Largest Economies Push to Reduce Reliance on Foreign Payment Systems
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
Warren Presses Amazon for Answers on Pricing Practices for Government Buyers
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
EU Antitrust Chief Raises Concerns Over Big Tech Control of AI
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
Burson Adds Senior Advisor to Strengthen Competition Team
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Pork Processors for Price-Fixing in Retail Supply Deals
Mar 12, 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