European Commission, v Lagardere SCA [2012] EUECJ C-551/10 (06 November 2012)

European Commission, v Lagardere SCA [2012] EUECJ C-551/10 (06 November 2012)

The Court held that the characterisation of the nominee holding arrangement and any procedural infringements by the Commission were irrelevant to the legality of the contested decision, as the final concentration was properly notified and assessed for compatibility with the common market. The statement of reasons was sufficient, and the General Court did not err in its assessment of dominant position or the sufficiency of commitments. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Citation
[2012] EUECJ C-551/10
Parties
Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS; Respondent: European Commission; Intervener/respondent: Lagardère SCA
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Concentration, Dominant Position, Procedural Infringements, Statement of Reasons, Commitments in Merger Proceedings
Competition Law European Union Law Merger Control Concentration Dominant Position Procedural Infringements Statement of Reasons Commitments in Merger Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Éditions Odile Jacob SAS

Appellant

European Commission

Respondent

Lagardère SCA

Intervener/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in its assessment of the meaning of 'concentration' and the legal characterisation of the nominee holding arrangement under Regulation No 4064/89
  2. 2 Whether procedural infringements by the Commission warranted annulment of the contested decision
  3. 3 Whether the statement of reasons in the Commission's decision was insufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the characterisation of the nominee holding arrangement and any procedural infringements by the Commission were irrelevant to the legality of the contested decision, as the final concentration was properly notified and assessed for compatibility with the common market. The statement of reasons was sufficient, and the General Court did not err in its assessment of dominant position or the sufficiency of commitments. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Odile Jacob is ordered to pay the costs.