UK: The Commission’s Liability For Bad Merger Decisions

Last Updated: 24 September 2009

Article by Gordon Christian and Simon Holmes*

Originally Published in Competition Law Insight

A Look At The Commission's Exposure Following The MyTravel And The ECJ's Judgment In Commission v Schneider Electric

Two years ago (in "Blocking mergers unlawfully", CLI 25 September 2007), the authors analysed the judgment of the European Court of First Instance in the Schneider Electric v Commission case. That case was a milestone in EC competition law as it was the first time that the Community Courts had confirmed that the European Commission could, in EU parlance, be "non-contractually" liable (that is to say, be liable in tort) for an unlawful merger prohibition decision if certain conditions were met. However, although the case reverberated through the competition community, many practitioners cautioned at the time that, even though the principle had been established, the paucity of merger prohibition decisions – and the significant hurdles put into an applicant's way by the CFI judgment – were likely to confine the potential effects of the CFI's judgment to a small handful of current and possible future cases.

As soon as it became clear that, as expected, the Commission was going to appeal against the CFI's judgment to the European Court of Justice, many wondered (as the authors' previous article in 2007 had asked) whether the Commission would be able to reclaim some lost ground when the ECJ ruled on the matter. For the reasons set out in more detail below, the authors believe that the Commission has indeed managed to convince the European Court of Justice to retreat from the high-water mark set by the CFI's judgment in Schneider Electric v Commission.

MyTravel Case

Nearly a year after the CFI published its judgment in Schneider Electric v Commission, the CFI had another opportunity to apply the new principles to a very different set of facts in the MyTravel case. This concerned the Commission prohibiting the merger between UK package holiday companies Airtours and First Choice in September 1999.

As in Schneider Electric in 2007, the CFI considered whether the three requirements for non-contractual liability to arise had been met. First, the Commission's conduct needed to be both unlawful and a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law designed to protect individuals. Second, the recipient of the unlawful merger prohibition decision must have suffered loss and, third, there must be a causal link between the unlawful merger prohibition decision and the loss alleged to have been suffered.

However, in contrast to Schneider Electric v Commission, where the CFI had held that a significant procedural error (relying on facts in the final decision that had not been relied on in the statement of objections, hence infringing Schneider Electric's rights of defence) had been committed, MyTravel sought to argue the case solely on the Commission's substantive errors of assessment. This was clearly going to be a more difficult proposition, as it has been well established since the Schöppenstedt case in the early 1970s that the Community Courts give the Commission some degree of leeway if the Commission has a margin of discretion concerning the act that is alleged to have given rise to loss. In other words, the Community Courts have generally not been keen to replace the Commission's decision on the merits of a particular case with their own decision on the merits.

As a result, MyTravel was unsuccessful in its attempt to gain compensation for losses it estimated at more than £500m that had allegedly resulted from the Commission's merger prohibition decision. This was despite the fact that, in its earlier judgment annulling the Commission's merger prohibition, the CFI had been highly critical of the Commission's analysis in the merger prohibition decision. In a nutshell, the reasons why the CFI decided that the Commission's faulty analysis did not constitute a sufficiently serious breach (and therefore failed to satisfy the second limb of the first condition for non-contractual liability to arise) was that the Commission had a margin of discretion in complex Phase II merger investigations, and that due account needed to be taken of time constraints imposed by the EC Merger Regulation.

The Commission v Schneider Electric Case

The Schneider Electric/Legrand transaction was notified to the Commission on 16 February 2001 and completed in August 2001. On 10 October 2001, the Commission found the merger to be "incompatible with the common market", mainly in relation to the markets for electrical switchboards and wiring accessories. On 13 December 2001, Schneider applied to the CFI to annul the 10 October 2001 incompatibility decision, but this was dismissed by the CFI on 23 January 2002. Shortly thereafter, on 30 January 2002, the Commission ordered Schneider to divest itself of Legrand in order to deal with the competition concerns identified.

On 18 March 2002, Schneider brought a further action before the CFI to annul both the divestment order and the October 2001 decision that the merger was incompatible with the common market. While the appeal was pending, Schneider took preparatory steps to divest Legrand in the event the Commission's decision was upheld. To this end, Schneider entered into a contract of sale with Wendel/KKR on 26 July 2002. This contract was due to expire on 10 December 2002 and, in the event that Schneider pulled out of the deal, a break fee of €180m was payable to Wendel/KKR.

The CFI, on 22 October 2002, found that the Commission had committed a serious procedural irregularity (described above). Both the prohibition decision and the divestment order were annulled and the Commission reopened its investigation into the merger, starting its investigation from Phase I. However, as the Commission continued to assert in the second investigation that a combination of Schneider and Legrand was likely to give rise to significant competition issues, and as Schneider wished to avoid paying the break fee to Wendel/KKR, Schneider chose to abandon the merger and sell Legrand to Wendel/KKR at a loss of €2bn. Schneider argued that it needed to sell Legrand to Wendel/KKR at a loss as, at the time of the sale, the prospect of a further merger prohibition decision in the Commission's second review of the merger was still looming and that, without such a prospect, the price that an acquirer may have paid for Legrand would have been higher.

Schneider Electric then sued the Commission for losses that it claimed it had incurred as a result of the Commission's merger prohibition decision which had been annulled by the CFI. As the authors analysed in their previous article on this topic, the CFI did not accept Schneider Electric's arguments that the Commission's substantive errors had given rise to non-contractual liability. This approach played some part as a precedent for the later (and very similar) CFI judgment in MyTravel already referred to above.

However, the CFI did accept that the Commission's serious procedural irregularity was sufficiently serious to give rise to non-contractual liability on the Commission's part for most of the losses that Schneider claimed it had suffered.

The Commission's Appeal

The Commission appealed against the CFI's judgment to the ECJ on a number of grounds.

First, the Commission claimed that the CFI had erred in classifying the serious procedural infringement as capable of being "sufficiently serious" to fulfil the first condition of the test concerning non-contractual liability. However, the ECJ had little sympathy with this argument and agreed with the CFI that the Commission's failure to set out, in the statement of objections, an issue that was relied on in the Commission's decision was sufficiently serious to give rise to non-contractual liability for an unlawful merger prohibition decision.

Second, the Commission argued that the CFI had mistakenly held that there was a sufficiently direct causal link between the wrongful act and the losses allegedly caused to Schneider as a result. The CFI had concluded that the causal link existed because Schneider had incurred a loss related to the depreciation of Legrand for the additional time it was taking (after the Wendel/KKR deal had been signed) in order to gain clarity from the CFI on the legal status of the entire – and, by that time, highly complex and convoluted – transaction.

However, the ECJ, agreeing with the advocate general's opinion on this point, found that Schneider's actions in selling Legrand to Wendel/KKR at the time that it did were motivated primarily by the fact that the European Commission continued to indicate, even in its second review of the transaction, that the transaction may not be compatible with the common market. In other words, if Schneider was going to have to sell Legrand at the end of the second Commission review of the transaction in any event, it was in fact Schneider's persistent attempt to acquire a competitor which (on competition grounds) it should not have been able to acquire that was the cause of Schneider's loss, rather than the Commission's unlawful merger prohibition decision.

This was therefore a costly outcome for Schneider, as the only head of damages on which the ECJ agreed with the CFI was that Schneider should be able to recover the costs it had incurred when participating in the Commission's second merger review (after the first one had been vitiated by the Commission's significant procedural irregularity).

Low Chances Of A Successful Action

After the ECJ's judgment in the Commission v Schneider Electric case, it is important to appreciate that the broad principle first established by the 2007 CFI judgment in Schneider Electric v Commission – namely, that the Commission can be non-contractually liable for unlawful merger prohibition decisions – still stands. However, the recent CFI and ECJ case law on the matter has given clear guidance on key issues that potential claimants must bear in mind.

As regards the first condition, namely that the Commission must have committed a sufficiently serious breach, it appears very difficult, after the CFI's judgments in Schneider Electric v Commission and MyTravel, for the Commission's erroneous (and likely annulled) substantive analysis of the competitive effects of the merger to lead to non-contractual liability. On the other hand, as confirmed by the CFI (and not overruled by the ECJ) in Commission v Schneider Electric, if the Commission makes significant procedural errors, this may well still give rise to liability

Another point to bear in mind, particularly after the ECJ's judgment in Commission v Schneider Electric, is that the claimant must ensure that all three conditions are fulfilled; in other words, that the required causal link between the unlawful behaviour and the alleged loss is also proved. It is in some ways understandable that a party seeking damages from the Commission will put a lot of emphasis on showing that the alleged illegality is sufficiently serious. However, the Community Courts have vividly shown that parties who gloss over the other requirements do so at their peril.

Ultimately, given that there are so few Commission merger prohibition decisions, the main effect of the recent case law is likely to be that, although in practice the risk of a successful non-contractual liability damages action against the Commission is low, the Commission must remain vigilant, particularly in upholding merging parties' procedural rights to the fullest extent required by law.


* Gordon Christian is an associate with – and Simon Holmes is a partner in – SJ Berwin LLP (London)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.