2020SSRN Electronic JournalOpen access

The General Court of the European Union Annuls the Decision of the European Commission’s Prohibition of a Four-to-Three Merger in the UK Telecoms Sector, in the First Judgment to Directly Deal With the Legal Test for ‘Gap Cases’

Simon Vande Walle

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

In May 2020, the General Court rendered its long-awaited judgment in the UK mobile merger case (Case T-399/16). At issue in this case was whether the Commission lawfully prohibited the acquisition by Hutchison of O2 (Telefonica UK) back in 2016. That deal would have reduced the number of mobile network operators in the UK from four to three. Hutchison appealed the Commission's prohibition decision to the General Court and won, as the General Court annulled the Commission decision.The judgment contains a wealth of interesting holdings, among others on the standard of proof in merger cases, the legal test to prohibit mergers, the role of market shares and concentration levels, the notion of important competitive force, the meaning of close competitors and on the probative value of a quantitative analysis of the effects of a merger. This note summarizes and comments on the key parts of the Court’s judgment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In May 2020, the General Court rendered its long-awaited judgment in the UK mobile merger case (Case T-399/16). At issue in this case was whether the Commission lawfully prohibited the acquisition by Hutchison of O2 (Telefonica UK) back in 2016. That deal would have reduced the number of mobile network operators in the UK from four to three. Hutchison appealed the Commission's prohibition decision to the General Court and won, as the General Court annulled the Commission decision.The judgment contains a wealth of interesting holdings, among others on the standard of proof in merger cases, the legal test to prohibit mergers, the role of market shares and concentration levels, the notion of important competitive force, the meaning of close competitors and on the probative value of a quantitative analysis of the effects of a merger. This note summarizes and comments on the key parts of the Court’s judgment.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In May 2020, the General Court rendered its long-awaited judgment in the UK mobile merger case (Case T-399/16). At issue in this case was whether the Commission lawfully prohibited the acquisition by Hutchison of O2 (Telefonica UK) back in 2016. That deal would have reduced the number of mobile network operators in the UK from four to three. Hutchison appealed the Commission's prohibition decision to the General Court and won, as the General Court annulled the Commission decision.The judgment contains a wealth of interesting holdings, among others on the standard of proof in merger cases, the legal test to prohibit mergers, the role of market shares and concentration levels, the notion of important competitive force, the meaning of close competitors and on the probative value of a quantitative analysis of the effects of a merger. This note summarizes and comments on the key parts of the Court’s judgment.

Key concepts: Commission, Competitor analysis, Law, European commission, European union, Meaning (existential), Political science, Business

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The General Court of the European Union Annuls the Decision of the European Commission’s Prohibition of a Four-to-Three Merger in the UK Telecoms Sector, in the First Judgment to Directly Deal With the Legal Test for ‘Gap Cases’ — Research Paper | ScholarLens