The Relationship Between Article 4(1)(b) of the Cross-Border Merger Directive and the European Merger Regulation

  • Marco Corradi
  • Julian Nowag
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 17)


In a time when protectionism is re-emerging as a strong policy stance on a global scale, the opposition to cross mergers based on public interest grounds may once more become more frequent. The lack of a common policy at the EU level leaves each Member State free to set its own framework to oppose mergers based on the public interest. However, such frameworks need to comply with Article 4(1)(b) of the Cross-Border Merger Directive (CBMD) which expressly introduces a non-discrimination principle in respect of MS’s provision which regulate the opposition of public interest. This paper compares the protection offered under Article 4(1)(b) with the one offered under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). It shows that the protections under the EUMR are greater and that the EUMR provides a robust ex ante assessment of public interest claims raised against the merger. However, it also shows that the role of the EUMR in the protection of mergers against public interest opposition is limited. This limitation stems from the threshold for establishing a Union dimension within the meaning for that Regulation. This Chapter suggests that, while the scope of the CBMD covers more mergers, the real playing field of public interest opposition is prior to the merger—during the takeover by a foreign company or the change of control in the terms of the EUMR.


  1. Corradi MC (2018) Notes on competition and Justum Pretium theory and practice in medieval Italy: lessons for modern EU competition price theory? Antitrust Bull 63(3):330–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fenger N, Broberg MP (2011) Finding light in the darkness: on the actual application of the acte clair Doctrine. Yearb Eur Law 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Galloway J (2007) EC merger control: does the re-emergence of protectionism signal the death of the ‘one stop shop’?. In: Draft Paper to the 3rd Annual CCP Summer Conference, vol 14Google Scholar
  4. Gaughan PA (2010) Mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructurings. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawk B (2018) English competition law before 1900. Antitrust Bull 63:350–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hilson C (1999) Discrimination in community free movement law. Eur Law Rev 24:445–462Google Scholar
  7. Jones A, Sufrin B (2014) EU competition law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Kemp R, Kersten N, Severijnen A (2012) Price effects of Dutch hospital mergers: an ex-post assessment of hip surgery. De Economist 160(3):237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kryda G (2002) The competition criterion in British merger control policy. Policy Stud J 30(2):252–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Monti G (2017) The United Kingdom’s contribution to European Union competition law. Fordham Int Law J 40(5):1443–1474Google Scholar
  11. Reader D (2017) At a crossroads in EU merger control: can a rethink on foreign takeovers address the imbalances of globalisation. Eur Competition Regul Law Rev 2Google Scholar
  12. Reader D (2018) Accommodating Public Interest Considerations in Domestic Merger Control: Empirical Insights. CCP Working Paper 16-3. Last Access 29 Mar 2018
  13. Scott A (2009) The evolution of competition law and policy in the United Kingdom. Available at Last access 20 Mar 2018
  14. Which R, Bailey D (2015) Competition law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Wise M (2004) Review of competition law and policy in the United Kingdom. OECD J Comp Law Policy 5(3):57–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Corradi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julian Nowag
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Stockholm Centre for Commercial Law and Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Oxford University Institute for European and Comparative LawOxfordUK
  3. 3.Lund UniversityLundSweden
  4. 4.Oxford University Centre for Competition Law and PolicyOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations