What Is a Concentration?
The Legal Architecture of EU Merger Control

When two large companies decide to combine, they do not simply shake hands and file paperwork. In the European Union, a transaction of sufficient size triggers one of the most elaborate regulatory machinery in the world: a mandatory pre-notification requirement, a suspension of the transaction until clearance is granted, and a review process that can involve hundreds of Commission officials, thousands of pages of economic analysis, and a political dimension that reaches to the highest levels of member state governments. The gateway to all of this is a single legal concept: the “concentration.”


Understanding what constitutes a concentration under EU law is not merely a technical exercise for lawyers drafting merger agreements. It defines the boundary between transactions that are freely available to private parties and transactions that require the prior approval of the state. It is, in structural terms, one of the most consequential legal definitions in European business law.

The Legal Foundation: Regulation 139/2004

The current framework for EU merger control is Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 of 20 January 2004, known as the EU Merger Regulation or EUMR. It replaced the original 1989 regulation and is enforced by the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission (DG Comp) in Brussels. The regulation applies not only to the 27 EU member states but also to the three members of the European Economic Area (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein), effectively making it the dominant merger control framework for the European continent.

 

The EUMR is based on the “one-stop shop” principle: once a transaction meets the EU-wide thresholds and is therefore notified to the Commission, the national competition authorities of the member states are generally precluded from applying their own merger control regimes to the same transaction. This is a fundamental feature of the system. Before 1989, a company doing a major cross-border deal in Europe had to notify potentially a dozen or more national authorities, each applying different substantive tests, different timelines, and different procedural requirements. The EUMR replaced that fragmented landscape with a single point of review.

The definition of “concentration” sits at Article 3 of the regulation and determines which transactions fall within this system at all.

The Definition: Change of Control on a Lasting Basis

Article 3(1) of the EUMR defines a concentration as arising where “a change of control on a lasting basis results from: (a) the merger of two or more previously independent undertakings or parts of undertakings; or (b) the acquisition… of direct or indirect control of the whole or parts of one or more other undertakings.”

Two elements of this definition require unpacking: what constitutes “control,” and what “lasting basis” means.

On control, the regulation is explicit. Article 3(2) defines control as “rights, contracts or other means which, either separately or in combination and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, confer the possibility of exercising decisive influence on an undertaking.” The word “possibility” is deliberate and important: you do not need to actually exercise control, only to have the structural ability to do so. And “decisive influence” covers both positive rights (the ability to determine what the company does) and negative rights (the ability to veto what the company does, which in practice amounts to the same thing when you can block every decision that matters).

The “lasting basis” requirement excludes temporary arrangements from the scope of merger control. A private equity firm that takes over a company for the purposes of restructuring and reselling it may appear to have acquired control, but if the Commission determines that the arrangement is transitional rather than structural, it may not constitute a concentration under the regulation. The test is whether the change in control produces a durable structural change in the market, not merely a temporary or instrumental shift in ownership.

Sole Control and Joint Control

The EUMR recognizes two fundamental modes of control: sole control and joint control.

Sole control is the simpler case. It typically arises where one undertaking acquires a majority shareholding in another, or where a contractual arrangement gives one party decisive influence over the strategic direction of the target. But sole control does not require a majority stake. It can arise with a minority shareholding if the factual circumstances of the ownership structure mean that the minority holder can consistently outvote all other shareholders in practice, or if special voting rights attached to the shares give the minority holder decisive influence over key decisions.

Sole control can also be “negative” as well as “positive.” Positive sole control is the situation where a party has the power to determine the strategic commercial policy of the target on its own. Negative sole control is the more unusual case where a party cannot make decisions alone but is the only shareholder capable of blocking decisions. If only one shareholder holds veto rights over fundamental decisions such as the approval of the annual budget, the appointment of senior management, or major capital investments, that veto position may constitute negative sole control even without a majority stake.

Joint control is the situation where two or more parties together hold the ability to exercise decisive influence. The paradigm case is the 50/50 joint venture, where two parent companies each hold half the shares and each has veto rights over strategic decisions. Since neither parent can impose its will without the agreement of the other, and since both must reach consensus on the fundamental direction of the venture, they jointly control it. The Commission has consistently held that the power to block decisions is the operative criterion for joint control: if A and B must agree before C can do anything significant, A and B jointly control C.

Joint control analysis becomes more complex with larger numbers of shareholders or unusual governance structures. Three parties may jointly control a company if they have veto rights arranged in a way that requires a minimum coalition to form for any decision to pass. A single party may have veto rights in a company where no other party has a majority, making that party a blocking minority holder. The Commission’s approach in these cases is fact-specific: it asks whether, as a matter of realistic commercial analysis, the party claiming not to have control can in practice be ignored by those who manage the undertaking.


Both sole control and joint control can arise by operation of law (de jure, based on formal legal documents including shareholder agreements, articles of association, and corporate bylaws) or by the operation of fact (de facto, based on the practical realities of corporate governance including the historical pattern of attendance at shareholder meetings, the economic dependence of one undertaking on another, and the specific structure of financing relationships). The EUMR requires the Commission to look at the substance rather than the form, and the Commission’s guidance documents make clear that arrangements structured to avoid the formal appearance of control may nonetheless constitute control if the economic reality is one of decisive influence.

The Full-Function Joint Venture

Article 3(4) of the EUMR creates a specific category of concentration that has been one of the most practically significant provisions in the regulation: the full-function joint venture. The article provides that “the creation of a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity shall constitute a concentration within the meaning of paragraph 1(b).”

This provision captures a class of transactions that would otherwise be borderline. Two companies forming a joint venture that simply pools their resources for a limited purpose, such as a marketing cooperation agreement or a joint research project, is not a concentration under the EUMR. The joint venture is not a full business with its own customers, its own employees performing the ordinary commercial functions of an independent company, and its own market presence. Such arrangements may well raise issues under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which governs anti-competitive agreements between independent undertakings, but they are not concentrations.

A full-function joint venture is different. It has its own management, its own staff, its own access to resources sufficient to enable it to operate on a sustainable basis, and it performs on a lasting basis all the functions that a normal undertaking in its market would perform. When a joint venture meets these criteria, it is, in economic substance, a new market participant, and the creation of that participant by its parents constitutes a structural change in the market that the EUMR is designed to assess.

The full-function test requires three conditions to be met: joint control by two or more parent companies, full functionality in the sense described above, and a lasting basis as opposed to a temporary or project-specific arrangement. If any one of these conditions is absent, the joint venture does not constitute a concentration for EUMR purposes, though it may still require assessment under competition law on other grounds.

What Does Not Constitute a Concentration

Clarity about what constitutes a concentration requires equal clarity about what does not.

The acquisition of a minority shareholding that does not confer sole or joint control does not constitute a concentration under the EUMR. This is a significant gap in the regulation’s reach. A company that acquires a 15 or 20 percent stake in a competitor, with no board representation and no special rights, has not made a notifiable acquisition under EU merger rules even if the stake gives it a structural connection to the competitive dynamics of the market. The Commission’s 2014 White Paper on merger reform raised the possibility of extending the EUMR to capture non-controlling minority acquisitions, arguing that such stakes can in practice reduce the acquirer’s incentive to compete vigorously with the target, but this proposal has not been enacted in legislation.

 

Asset purchases can constitute concentrations if the assets being acquired constitute a business, meaning an economic activity with a defined market presence, customer relationships, and the operational elements necessary to function independently. A company selling a factory together with its customer contracts, its staff, and its brand is selling a business; a company selling a factory alone is not. The distinction matters because the former acquisition might constitute a concentration while the latter would not.


Internal restructurings within a single corporate group do not constitute concentrations because there is no change of control: a parent company reorganizing the ownership of its wholly-owned subsidiaries is not changing the underlying control relationship. The regulation applies to changes of control, not to the movement of already-controlled assets within an already-integrated group.

The Union Dimension: Turning a Concentration into a Notifiable Concentration

Not every concentration falls within the EUMR’s jurisdiction. The regulation applies only to concentrations with a “Union dimension,” which is determined by reference to the worldwide and EU-wide turnover of the undertakings concerned.

The primary thresholds under Article 1(2) require that the combined aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned exceeds 5 billion euros, and that the EU-wide turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings concerned exceeds 250 million euros. A concentration meeting both conditions has a Union dimension unless each of the undertakings concerned achieves more than two-thirds of its EU-wide turnover within one and the same member state, in which case the matter is left to that state’s national authorities.

An alternative set of thresholds under Article 1(3) was added in 1997 to address cases where a transaction has significant impact across multiple member states but falls below the primary thresholds. Under these secondary thresholds, a concentration has a Union dimension if it would have to be notified in at least three member states under their national regimes and meets lower combined worldwide and per-member-state turnover requirements.

The turnover thresholds were calibrated to capture large-scale cross-border concentrations while leaving smaller or more locally focused transactions to national authorities. The Commission’s exclusive competence under the EUMR is designed to provide the one-stop shop that makes major European transactions manageable. Transactions that trigger only one or two national notification requirements are appropriately handled at the national level.

Mandatory Pre-Notification and the Standstill Obligation

Once a transaction is determined to constitute a concentration with a Union dimension, the EUMR imposes two fundamental obligations on the parties. 


The first is mandatory pre-notification. The parties must notify the Commission of the concentration before implementing it. This is not a voluntary process: failure to notify a notifiable concentration is a serious infringement of the regulation, carrying fines of up to 10 percent of aggregate worldwide turnover and the potential invalidity of the transaction itself.

The second is the standstill obligation: the parties must not implement the concentration until the Commission has cleared it. This “gun-jumping” prohibition means that the parties cannot take steps to integrate their businesses, exchange competitively sensitive information, or exercise any rights of control over the target before clearance is granted. Gun-jumping is itself an infringement that can be fined separately from any failure to notify. The Commission has been increasingly active in pursuing gun-jumping cases in recent years.

The practical consequence of these obligations is that major cross-border mergers must be planned with the regulatory timeline explicitly in mind. The Commission has a Phase I review period of 25 working days and, if it opens an in-depth investigation, a Phase II review of 90 additional working days with extensions possible. A complex transaction may take six months or more from notification to clearance. During this entire period, the parties are operating independently and cannot take the integration steps that are often economically critical to the rationale for the transaction.

The Substantive Test: Does the Concentration Significantly Impede Competition?

Once a concentration with a Union dimension has been notified, the Commission applies the substantive test under Article 2 of the EUMR: whether the concentration would significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area, or a substantial part of it. The regulation specifies that the test applies particularly to concentrations that create or strengthen a dominant position.

The shift from the earlier “dominant position” test to the “significant impediment to effective competition” (SIEC) test in the 2004 regulation was substantively important. The SIEC test explicitly captured a category of mergers that the older test had difficulty addressing: situations where a merger reduces the number of market participants without creating a traditional single dominant position, but where the resulting market structure still impairs competitive dynamics. This category, called “non-coordinated” or “unilateral” effects in the language of merger economics, is now fully within the Commission’s jurisdictional reach.

Since the EUMR came into force in 1990 through July 2023, the Commission had received 8,920 notifications. Of these, 89 percent resulted in Phase I clearance without conditions. Fewer than 0.4 percent, specifically 32 decisions across 33 years, resulted in outright prohibition. The Commission is therefore significantly less interventionist than public perception sometimes suggests, though the cases that do attract attention are precisely those where the Commission takes a more assertive position.

Landmark Cases: The Boundaries of Concentration Control

The jurisprudence that has shaped the legal understanding of concentration under the EUMR illustrates both the Commission’s reach and its limits.

Gencor/Lonrho (1997), decided under the original 1989 regulation, established the Commission’s ability to assert jurisdiction over concentrations between non-EU companies on the basis of their effects on competition within the EU. Gencor was a South African mining company and Lonrho was a British company with platinum mining interests in South Africa. The proposed merger would have created a dominant position in the global platinum market, with about 90 percent of the world’s reserves concentrated between the merged entity and a single rival, both South African. The Commission prohibited the transaction, and the Court of First Instance upheld the decision in 1999, confirming that the Commission’s jurisdiction reaches wherever there are effects on EU markets, regardless of where the merging companies are incorporated.

The de Havilland case (1991) was the first outright prohibition under the original regulation and established early that the Commission would act even against strong political opposition. The proposed joint acquisition of the Canadian aircraft manufacturer by Aerospatiale (French) and Alenia (Italian) would have given the merged entity 64 percent of global sales of regional commercial aircraft. The Commission prohibited it despite opposition from within the Commission itself and from French and Italian governments, demonstrating the institutional independence of merger control from industrial policy considerations.

 

The Airtours/First Choice case (2002) illustrates the limits as well as the reach of Commission power. The Commission prohibited the merger on collective dominance grounds, finding that it would result in a tight oligopoly of three tour operators able to coordinate their behavior to the detriment of competition. The Court of First Instance annulled the decision in 2002, finding that the Commission had not sufficiently demonstrated the prerequisites for collective dominance: a stable equilibrium, the ability to monitor deviations, and the absence of countervailing competitive forces. The annulment was one of three in that period that forced a significant recalibration of the Commission’s economic analysis framework.

The Article 22 Controversy: Expanding the Net

A significant recent development in the EUMR’s application of the concentration concept concerns Article 22, which allows member states to refer transactions to the Commission even when they fall below the EU turnover thresholds. The provision was originally designed as a limited safety valve for member states that lacked national merger control regimes.

 

In 2021, the Commission announced that it would begin accepting Article 22 referrals from member states for below-threshold transactions in markets where a target company had significant competitive potential but low current turnover, a pattern common in pharmaceutical, digital, and data-driven markets where companies are valuable long before they generate significant revenue. This policy represented a significant expansion of the Commission’s effective jurisdiction and was controversial because the EUMR’s threshold-based system was designed to provide legal certainty.

In September 2024, the Court of Justice of the EU issued a landmark judgment in the Illumina/Grail case, which definitively limited the Commission’s ability to accept Article 22 referrals for transactions that fall below both the EU thresholds and the thresholds of the referring member state. The ruling reinstated the primacy of the turnover thresholds and significantly narrowed the Commission’s ability to expand its jurisdictional reach beyond the explicit terms of the regulation. Whether the Commission will seek legislative amendment to address this limitation remains an active question in EU competition law.

What the Concept Reveals

The legal architecture of “concentration” under EU law reveals a fundamental policy choice embedded in regulatory design: that the state has a legitimate interest in reviewing structural changes to markets before they occur, rather than only after competitive harm can be demonstrated. This is the ex ante logic of merger control, as opposed to the ex post logic of abuse of dominance or cartel enforcement.

 

The concept of concentration is defined broadly enough to capture the full range of structural arrangements through which one undertaking might gain decisive influence over another, from majority shareholdings to contractual control to the creation of new joint ventures. It is defined narrowly enough to exclude transient relationships, minority investments that leave no controlling influence, and purely internal restructurings.

 

The resulting framework is one of the most sophisticated regulatory systems in the world, processing nearly 400 notifications per year, clearing the vast majority of them without conditions, and occasionally prohibiting or conditioning those that would significantly impair the competitive structure of European markets. Whether a particular arrangement constitutes a concentration in the legal sense is always the first and most fundamental question, because on it depends everything else: whether you need approval, how long you have to wait, and whether the deal you have agreed can actually be completed.

References

Office

South Florida Central Office
66 West Flagler, Suite 1203
Miami, FL, 33130, United States

Contact Us

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +1 (434) 688-0098

Other Services