In a judgment dated 31 May 2018, the Court of Justice has taken a clear position against too broad an interpretation of the "standstill obligation" in concentrations. It thus confirms the opinion of Advocate General Wahl which we have previously discussed.
In Eubelius Spotlights March 2018 we discussed an opinion by Advocate General Wahl, in which he took a clear position against too broad an interpretation of the standstill obligation. In a judgment issued on 31 May 2018, the Court of Justice has confirmed that opinion.
The Court of Justice confirms that the fact that KPMG Denmark had to terminate its cooperation agreement with KPMG International prior to clearance by the Danish Competition Authority did not result in a violation of the standstill obligation.
The Court also confirms that a measure only qualifies as gun jumping if it contributes to the implementation of a concentration. In order to qualify as such, the measure must contribute to a change of control over the target entity.