Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Charles Soden-Bird
    • Nick Bromfield
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Matthew Fox
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Mark Clough
    • Stewart White
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Galyna Carey
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Claire Barraclough
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

The Preiskel Blog

Protectionism in Merger Control: Is the Process of Merger Control Adequate to Consider Wider Public Interest Issues? Is it Now Time for CFIEU?

April 24, 2015By Preiskel & Co

Protectionism in Merger Control: Is the Process of Merger Control Adequate to Consider Wider Public Interest Issues? Is it Now Time for CFIEU?

Whether a broader public interest test should apply to merger control has recently been discussed by Alex Chisholm, CEO of the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority, after being raised at Prime Minister’s questions during Pfizer’s attempt to acquire Astra Zeneca. Similar issues also arose this year in France regarding General Electric’s bid for Alstom. They are not isolated incidents and follow cases in many other jurisdictions that have come up over the years. They remind us that merger control by competition authorities is not the only source of control over mergers, and that public policy issues on mergers, and grounds other than competition grounds, do not go away.

At the outset it is important to note that EU merger control is currently designed to investigate and assess competition issues. The legal tests against which the mergers are judged are based on competition law concepts such as whether the proposed merger would strengthen dominance in a relevant market or significantly impede effective competition. The people who administer the system, and those who work for merging parties, complainants, and others affected by mergers, have developed considerable expertise in the law and economics used to assess and determine whether a merger meets these tests. As a one-stop shop, the Commission only has exclusive jurisdiction to decide on competition grounds. Non-economic public interests are carved out and have no place in the substantive tests. However, other public interests do arise and there is a process, addressed in Article 21 of the Merger Regulation, for Member States to take “appropriate measures” to protect other “legitimate interests.”

Article 21 refers to legitimate interests and lists a few. What may be a public interest that is legitimate is not a closed list, and is subject to Commission assessment. Legitimate public interests can be notified in advance and can be added to over time.

This system means that national controls over media plurality, defense, or other legitimate public interests continue to exist at national levels. Such issues are addressed by national officials under separate national regimes (such as the recent News Corp/Sky merger in the United Kingdom).

Wider public interest issues do continue to arise, posing a question about greater coordination being needed on their assessment and determination. This article briefly reviews some of the cases and issues that have been, or are being, raised. It accepts that the current system of merger control is ill suited to considering a wider public interest investigation or adjudication and that a wide public interest test is undesirable. However, a case can be made for a more coordinated EU system of parallel oversight, similar to that which operates in the United States, to consider other non-competition related public interests on investment within a merger control timetable. The current debate is outlined below, followed by a modest suggestion of how the system could be reformed for the future, which might form the basis for a discussion of the mechanism.

Timothy Cowen is an equity partner at Preiskel & Co and is independently recognized as one of the leading telecoms and technology regulatory/competition lawyers in the EU.  The above was originally posted at Competition Policy International, and is re-published with kind permission. 

The full article is available to subscribers of Competition Policy International. To subscribe and access the full article, click here.

Latest blog posts
  • European Commission proposal for Digital Services Act published
    December 15, 2020
  • Facebook faces antitrust lawsuits in the US
    December 11, 2020
  • CMA issues advice for Government on regulatory regime for tech giants
    December 10, 2020
  • New Telecoms Security Law Laid before Parliament for tougher Rules and Fines for Telecoms Companies
    November 25, 2020
  • New Ofcom Consultation on Copper Retirement
    November 23, 2020
  • European Commission releases draft new Standard Contractual Clauses
    November 19, 2020
  • National Security and Investment Bill published
    November 16, 2020
  • Inherited GDPR breach still leads to a record fine for Marriott
    November 3, 2020
  • UK National Data Strategy: a step further away from an adequacy decision under the GDPR?
    October 21, 2020
  • British Airways issued £20 million fine by ICO for data breach
    October 20, 2020
  • Consumer rights in times of COVID-19: key issues to be considered by traders
    September 17, 2020
  • TuneIn limits international radio streaming services following English High Court judgment
    September 16, 2020
The Preiskel Blog
  • European Commission proposal for Digital Services Act published 15 Dec 2020
  • Facebook faces antitrust lawsuits in the US 11 Dec 2020
  • CMA issues advice for Government on regulatory regime for tech giants 10 Dec 2020
  • New Telecoms Security Law Laid before Parliament for tougher Rules and Fines for Telecoms Companies 25 Nov 2020
Preiskel news
  • Tim Cowen to deliver Oxford lecture on 12 February 2021
  • CMA announces investigation into Google Privacy Sandbox
  • Preiskel advised Dubber’s acquistion of UK mobile recording company Speik
  • Tim Cowen to speak at Cornerstone Panel on 15 December 2020
Preiskel tweets
  • We can't wait to hear what @TC_4KBW has to say when he delivers a guest lecture for @OxfordLawFac on searching for… https://t.co/ko8Kk44aTm8 days ago
  • We're delighted to see this announcement, following a complaint from Marketers for an Open Web, advised by @TC_4KBW https://t.co/JG1D3gWwRF8 days ago
  • The @EU_Commission has published its proposal for a Digital Services Act to regulate digital gatekeepers. More det… https://t.co/Q5v8C8E9hq32 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel:
+44 20 7332 5640
Email:
info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2021 | Site map | Legal notices | Privacy | Cookie Policy

   

We use essential and analytic cookies on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies as set in our Cookie Policy. OKCookie policy