Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt (C-248/16)
Judgment
Consideration of the question referred
32

Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt (C-248/16)

Judgment of 7 Sept 2017law://eu/cjeu/2016/c-248-16/para_32@2026-11-10

32As follows from Article 21(1) of Regulation No 139/2004, that regulation alone is to apply to concentrations as defined in Article 3 of the regulation, to which Regulation No 1/2003 is not, in principle, applicable.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fifth Chamber
Case: C-248/16 · ECLI:EU:C:2017:643
Decided: 7 Sept 2017
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria)
Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG
Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt
Rapporteur: A. Tizzano
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits, F. Biltgen
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62016CJ0248

Topics

Concentrations between undertakings

History · 1 version

7 Sept 2017Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 20: Mainova AG and enercity AG v European Commission (C-178/24); EVH GmbH and Others v European Commission (C-171/24); EVH GmbH and Others v European Commission (C-464/23); Tele Columbus AG v European Commission (T-69/20)2 provisions; Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (T-64/20)2 provisions; Illumina Inc. and Grail LLC v European Commission (C-611/22 P); EVH GmbH v European Commission (T-53/21)2 provisions; Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland GmbH, formerly GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH v European Commission (T-58/21); TEAG Thüringer Energie AG v European Commission (T-56/21); eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (T-59/21); EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH v European Commission (T-61/21); Naturstrom AG v European Commission (T-60/21); enercity AG v European Commission (T-65/21); Mainova AG v European Commission (T-64/21); Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH v European Commission (T-55/21); GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG v European Commission (T-62/21); Altice Group Lux Sàrl v European Commission (C-746/21 P)2 provisions; GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG v European Commission (T-319/20); EVH GmbH v European Commission (T-312/20)2 provisions; TEAG Thüringer Energie AG v European Commission (T-315/20)
Cites 5: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance); Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz (C-315/14); Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance); French Republic and Société commerciale des potasses et de l'azote (SCPA) and Entreprise minière et chimique (EMC) v Commission of the European Communities (C-68/94, C-30/95)