Your contact for new licenses
Ursula von der Leyen is holding many talks these days; yesterday alone, the Commission President interviewed half a dozen Commissioner candidates. Next Wednesday, Sept. 11, she wants to present her new team. Firstly, in the late morning to the group chairmen in the European Parliament, then to the public.
The new college is not yet as firmly established as some press reports suggest. What is clear is that von der Leyen and her head of cabinet Björn Seibert no longer want vice presidents who have no direct administrative link to a Directorate General – without this working muscle, a title without much value. Instead, there will be several executive vice-presidents.
However, the allocation of portfolios is reportedly still in flux, as are the names of the designated new Commissioners themselves. Not all of the candidates publicly nominated by the member states will be on von der Leyen’s final list. This may be because the CDU politician wants more women in her new team, or because the competencies of the candidates do not quite match the responsibilities desired by the governments. The new Commissioners-designate will only find out what responsibilities the President ultimately envisages for them shortly before the public.
So it remains exciting.
After six months, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) has achieved mixed results: “The DMA is on the way to achieving its goals and having a noticeable impact”, says Kush Amlani, Global Competition & Regulatory Counsel at Mozilla, in an interview with Table.Briefings. However, there is still a lot to do. The Commission faces the challenge of using its limited resources effectively. “They are doing a good job given their limited resources“, praises Amlani. At the same time, however, he emphasizes that more assertiveness and possibly additional resources are needed to really force the big players to change their practices.
This is also the view of Andreas Schwab (CDU), the EU Parliament’s rapporteur for the DMA. “Overall, the balance sheet looks positive because it is clear that the core demands we made in the Digital Markets Act are being met,” says Schwab. Unfortunately, however, progress is being made much more slowly than desired. “The core problem is still that there are not as many employees as would be necessary”, says Schwab. “It’s annoying.” A lot can be decided, but in the end it’s about what the laws actually achieve.
The aim of the Digital Markets Act is to ensure fair and open digital markets. The Act is intended to ensure that large digital platforms, which act as gatekeepers, do not abuse their strong economic position to the detriment of other market participants and consumers. It is one of the core elements of the EU digital strategy.
The reason why the Commission does not employ more staff for enforcement is quite simple, says Schwab. “The Commission doesn’t have the money.” Unlike the Digital Services Act (DSA), for example, the DMA does not provide for the companies concerned to pay the fee for their supervision themselves. This is justified with the DSA, but problematic with the DMA, says the CDU politician. “We don’t want the large corporations to finance the commission services. This would create a silent form of cooperation, which is not desirable, especially in the area of competition control.”
Initially, the Commission designated six gatekeepers – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft – as part of the DMA. Later, Apple’s operating system for tablets and the booking platform Booking were added. A total of 24 central platform services of the gatekeepers are currently covered by the law. As a result, the Commission has already initiated several market investigations, including against:
Amlani emphasizes that the DMA has already brought about initial changes. As examples, he cited the introduction of choice screens at Apple and Google, which should theoretically offer users more choice. However, these initiatives have not been fully implemented. “They weren’t really designed to give users full choice”, Amlani says. “We believe it could go further.”
However, many of the gatekeepers would not give up their positions so easily. “Some of the changes that companies have made seem to be aimed at limiting the impact on their business as much as possible“, says Amlani. “They are using leeway in interpretation to meet the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.” It is therefore not only the enforcement of the Commission that is needed, but also “the involvement of third parties as well as the involvement of consumers.“
Amlani is convinced that opening the door is not enough. “You also have to encourage people to walk through it. Consumers should understand that they have a choice and what these choices mean.”
The Europeans were the first “to make it clear that there was a massive distortion of competition that we could not stand idly by”, says Schwab. “The Americans followed suit emphatically a few years later.” Amlani also points out: “Other countries are looking closely at the EU. Some have already adopted or are considering adopting their own versions of the DMA.” He cites the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan as examples.
“It seems that Apple is trying to limit the impact of the DMA to Europe only“, says Amlani. “That’s a shame, because the benefits of the DMA should actually be available to all customers.” However, if other countries follow the EU’s example, there will be less risk of the major platforms offering different services in Europe than elsewhere in the future. “The next five years must follow the goal of improving competition in the digital age“, demands Schwab. “We must not simply turn a blind eye to the big gatekeepers.”
A ruling by the European Court of Justice is fueling the debate about a reform of competition law. The Luxembourg judges annulled the EU Commission’s decision to prohibit the US medical technology manufacturer Illumina from taking over Grail. The EU competition authorities should not have examined the deal because the start-up Grail did not meet the European or national thresholds. The judges justified their decision by stating that companies need planning and legal certainty for such transactions.
The court thus not only overturned the judgment of the first instance, but also a practice of the Commission in merger control, which it had applied for the first time in the case. It had encouraged the antitrust authorities in several member states to refer the case to Brussels, even though Grail did not reach the turnover thresholds above which the authorities are allowed to review a merger. The Commission based this on a “recalibration” of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, which it itself adopted in 2021.
The Commission wanted to be able to intervene on this basis when established companies buy up start-ups with promising technology that are still generating little turnover. The fear is that the established company does not want to market the innovation itself, but only wants to get rid of a potential competitor. In the past, the competition authorities have had little recourse against so-called killer acquisitions in the tech sector, for example.
Experts such as Rupprecht Podszun, Director of the Institute for Antitrust Law at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, had long doubted that the new practice would stand up in court. He describes the ECJ’s decision as a “heavy blow for the Commission”. The Commission had attempted to extend its powers in a very self-confident manner, which had already been viewed critically in Germany. “A real reform would have been more honest”, says Podszun.
Max von Thun from the Open Markets Institute, an NGO that promotes a more offensive competition policy, is also not surprised by the ECJ ruling. It had already been apparent since the Advocate General’s opinion in March of this year. The recourse to Article 22 was an imperfect, short-term remedy that should never have been interpreted as a long-term solution to the problem of killer acquisitions, von Thun told Table.Briefings.
The antitrust lawyer Podszun expects that the “calls for reforms in merger control will now become even louder”. In her political guidelines for her second term of office, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced her intention to advocate a “new approach to competition policy”, targeting merger control in particular. At least since the rail merger between Siemens and Alstom was prohibited in 2019, Berlin and Paris have been pushing for the standards of merger control to be relaxed in order to allow the emergence of globally competitive large companies. Several other member states take a more critical view.
Podszun also warns against such relaxations: He certainly sees a need for reform, not only with regard to killer acquisitions. “However, if a reform of merger control ultimately leads to a weakening of merger control, that would be bitter.”
The new Commission is now facing tricky competition policy and practical challenges, says Jens Peter Schmidt, partner at the law firm Noerr in Brussels. It will now have to find new ways of continuing to review strategic takeovers of small, particularly innovative companies. According to Vestager, the Commission now wants to examine further steps “to ensure that the Commission is able to examine the few cases where a transaction would have an impact in Europe but otherwise does not meet the EU notification thresholds”.
Podszun now believes that the antitrust authorities in the member states have a duty to act first. Germany already introduced a purchase price threshold in 2017 in order to be able to review takeovers of companies with low turnover but high valuations. “The Federal Cartel Office is therefore better placed to deal with cases in which start-ups are acquired than the Commission.”
Max von Thun is in favor of a reform of the European Merger Regulation. Like Podszun, he points to the possibility of introducing a purchase price threshold based on the market value of the merger. Alternatively, as in the UK, a control threshold based on the size of the buyer could be introduced.
Liberal MEP and competition rapporteur Stéphanie Yon-Courtin is also in favor of a reform of the Merger Regulation. “Turnover is not everything”, she warns with reference to the current turnover threshold. In her eyes, killer acquisitions not only endanger competitiveness, but also Europe’s strategic interests, for example in the event that innovative European companies are bought up and liquidated by US groups.
In addition to a reform of existing regulation, she also calls for a sectoral approach that focuses on strategically important cutting-edge technologies. Especially in the technologies in which Europe wants to be strong in the future, no killer acquisitions should be allowed, says Yon-Courtin.
In her opinion, the ECJ ruling comes at a good time at the start of a new mandate and before the new Commission is confirmed. “This is a topic on which we can question the new Competition Commissioner”, she announces.
Before being confirmed by Parliament, the Commissioners-designate have to undergo intensive questioning in the parliamentary committees. Sometimes Parliament succeeds in extracting specific promises from the future Commissioners during these interviews. Even if it is not yet known who the new Competition Commissioner will be: What is clear is that he or she will have to have an answer ready on how to deal with killer acquisitions.
There is a silent environmental crisis unfolding around us. Chemicals, such as lead and nitrogen, are in our soil, our water supply and our household products, often going unseen, but with dire results. For example, we have only begun to understand the true magnitude of lead poisoning, its impact on cardiovascular disease and our children’s ability to learn. There is no safe level of lead in the human body.
World Bank research shows that 5.5 million people worldwide die prematurely from cardiovascular disease related to lead exposure every year, and that on average, children under five lose nearly 6 IQ points in low- and middle- income countries. These kids are being set up to fail, losing out on a chance to lead healthy, productive lives.
The cost of this loss could be over 11% of lifetime income for children who participate in the labor force, as each lost IQ point can reduce income by two percent. It’s a huge – and hidden – burden on economic development.
And lead is just one example. 60 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer transfers into our air and water, decimating fish stocks, creating air pollution, and contributing to climate change. Cadmium, which is found in batteries, electronics, and paint, can cause kidney failure and cancer. In most cases, it is the poor and vulnerable who are impacted the most by chemical pollution. It is time to act for a planet free of harm from chemicals and waste.
Chemicals are necessary for our development. They allow us to manufacture products such as medicines and fertilizer. They will be essential for the technologies such as solar panels and batteries that we need for a low carbon future to tackle the climate crisis. And sometimes they just make our lives easier. But the way we currently produce and use chemicals and spread waste around the world – single-use plastics, discarded electronics, obsolete pesticides, air pollution from industry and fossil fuels – not only jeopardizes people’s health, it also destroys nature and undermines achieving the sustainable development goals.
However, this is not a doom and gloom situation. We have concrete examples of the world taking joint action and successfully removing harmful pollutants. Global efforts have removed lead from gasoline, the Montreal Protocol has stopped the depletion of the ozone layer.
There is new global momentum to tackle chemical pollution. One year ago, the world agreed on the Global Framework on Chemicals. It encompasses and encourages action by many sectors and stakeholders: governments, industry, NGOs, international organizations. This is a massive achievement, but only a first step. Now we must fill it with life, action, capacity, and finance.
We have seen a promising tide of change since just last year. Governments are beginning to implement the Framework at the national level. A Global Framework on Chemicals Fund has been set up and begun its work, with support from Germany (20 million euros contribution) and other donors, including the chemical industry. The Fund will help developing countries strengthen their capacity to sustainably manage chemicals, in a way tailored to their needs. International organizations are coordinating their actions and working with partners on programs to implement the Framework, to ensure that economic development does not mean living in a polluted environment.
To ensure more sustainable and sound chemical management we must continue to work across society: the chemical industry must invest in green and sustainable chemistry to anticipate, replace, avoid and prevent the adverse effects of large scale chemical use. Governments must have the insights, political will and capacity to set guardrails for use of chemicals. And as consumers and civil society we must be smart: not every product that appears to make our daily lives easier is also good for us.
We must come together to govern overuse and safe management of chemicals, and to ensure that communities around the world do not get pulled back into poverty due to the impacts of pollution. We have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren a livable and pollution-free planet.
The World Bank Group and Germany are fully committed to this agenda. This week, leaders are gathering for the 3rd Berlin Forum to discuss the way forward. We call on all actors to play their part in making the Global Framework on Chemicals an effective agreement. Only together can we succeed. This is a huge task – but also an important opportunity: for our generation to reverse the current trends, for a healthy planet and for safer living conditions for our children.
Steffi Lemke is Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, Germany. Axel van Trotsenburg is Senior Managing Director, World Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen is holding many talks these days; yesterday alone, the Commission President interviewed half a dozen Commissioner candidates. Next Wednesday, Sept. 11, she wants to present her new team. Firstly, in the late morning to the group chairmen in the European Parliament, then to the public.
The new college is not yet as firmly established as some press reports suggest. What is clear is that von der Leyen and her head of cabinet Björn Seibert no longer want vice presidents who have no direct administrative link to a Directorate General – without this working muscle, a title without much value. Instead, there will be several executive vice-presidents.
However, the allocation of portfolios is reportedly still in flux, as are the names of the designated new Commissioners themselves. Not all of the candidates publicly nominated by the member states will be on von der Leyen’s final list. This may be because the CDU politician wants more women in her new team, or because the competencies of the candidates do not quite match the responsibilities desired by the governments. The new Commissioners-designate will only find out what responsibilities the President ultimately envisages for them shortly before the public.
So it remains exciting.
After six months, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) has achieved mixed results: “The DMA is on the way to achieving its goals and having a noticeable impact”, says Kush Amlani, Global Competition & Regulatory Counsel at Mozilla, in an interview with Table.Briefings. However, there is still a lot to do. The Commission faces the challenge of using its limited resources effectively. “They are doing a good job given their limited resources“, praises Amlani. At the same time, however, he emphasizes that more assertiveness and possibly additional resources are needed to really force the big players to change their practices.
This is also the view of Andreas Schwab (CDU), the EU Parliament’s rapporteur for the DMA. “Overall, the balance sheet looks positive because it is clear that the core demands we made in the Digital Markets Act are being met,” says Schwab. Unfortunately, however, progress is being made much more slowly than desired. “The core problem is still that there are not as many employees as would be necessary”, says Schwab. “It’s annoying.” A lot can be decided, but in the end it’s about what the laws actually achieve.
The aim of the Digital Markets Act is to ensure fair and open digital markets. The Act is intended to ensure that large digital platforms, which act as gatekeepers, do not abuse their strong economic position to the detriment of other market participants and consumers. It is one of the core elements of the EU digital strategy.
The reason why the Commission does not employ more staff for enforcement is quite simple, says Schwab. “The Commission doesn’t have the money.” Unlike the Digital Services Act (DSA), for example, the DMA does not provide for the companies concerned to pay the fee for their supervision themselves. This is justified with the DSA, but problematic with the DMA, says the CDU politician. “We don’t want the large corporations to finance the commission services. This would create a silent form of cooperation, which is not desirable, especially in the area of competition control.”
Initially, the Commission designated six gatekeepers – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft – as part of the DMA. Later, Apple’s operating system for tablets and the booking platform Booking were added. A total of 24 central platform services of the gatekeepers are currently covered by the law. As a result, the Commission has already initiated several market investigations, including against:
Amlani emphasizes that the DMA has already brought about initial changes. As examples, he cited the introduction of choice screens at Apple and Google, which should theoretically offer users more choice. However, these initiatives have not been fully implemented. “They weren’t really designed to give users full choice”, Amlani says. “We believe it could go further.”
However, many of the gatekeepers would not give up their positions so easily. “Some of the changes that companies have made seem to be aimed at limiting the impact on their business as much as possible“, says Amlani. “They are using leeway in interpretation to meet the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.” It is therefore not only the enforcement of the Commission that is needed, but also “the involvement of third parties as well as the involvement of consumers.“
Amlani is convinced that opening the door is not enough. “You also have to encourage people to walk through it. Consumers should understand that they have a choice and what these choices mean.”
The Europeans were the first “to make it clear that there was a massive distortion of competition that we could not stand idly by”, says Schwab. “The Americans followed suit emphatically a few years later.” Amlani also points out: “Other countries are looking closely at the EU. Some have already adopted or are considering adopting their own versions of the DMA.” He cites the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan as examples.
“It seems that Apple is trying to limit the impact of the DMA to Europe only“, says Amlani. “That’s a shame, because the benefits of the DMA should actually be available to all customers.” However, if other countries follow the EU’s example, there will be less risk of the major platforms offering different services in Europe than elsewhere in the future. “The next five years must follow the goal of improving competition in the digital age“, demands Schwab. “We must not simply turn a blind eye to the big gatekeepers.”
A ruling by the European Court of Justice is fueling the debate about a reform of competition law. The Luxembourg judges annulled the EU Commission’s decision to prohibit the US medical technology manufacturer Illumina from taking over Grail. The EU competition authorities should not have examined the deal because the start-up Grail did not meet the European or national thresholds. The judges justified their decision by stating that companies need planning and legal certainty for such transactions.
The court thus not only overturned the judgment of the first instance, but also a practice of the Commission in merger control, which it had applied for the first time in the case. It had encouraged the antitrust authorities in several member states to refer the case to Brussels, even though Grail did not reach the turnover thresholds above which the authorities are allowed to review a merger. The Commission based this on a “recalibration” of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, which it itself adopted in 2021.
The Commission wanted to be able to intervene on this basis when established companies buy up start-ups with promising technology that are still generating little turnover. The fear is that the established company does not want to market the innovation itself, but only wants to get rid of a potential competitor. In the past, the competition authorities have had little recourse against so-called killer acquisitions in the tech sector, for example.
Experts such as Rupprecht Podszun, Director of the Institute for Antitrust Law at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, had long doubted that the new practice would stand up in court. He describes the ECJ’s decision as a “heavy blow for the Commission”. The Commission had attempted to extend its powers in a very self-confident manner, which had already been viewed critically in Germany. “A real reform would have been more honest”, says Podszun.
Max von Thun from the Open Markets Institute, an NGO that promotes a more offensive competition policy, is also not surprised by the ECJ ruling. It had already been apparent since the Advocate General’s opinion in March of this year. The recourse to Article 22 was an imperfect, short-term remedy that should never have been interpreted as a long-term solution to the problem of killer acquisitions, von Thun told Table.Briefings.
The antitrust lawyer Podszun expects that the “calls for reforms in merger control will now become even louder”. In her political guidelines for her second term of office, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced her intention to advocate a “new approach to competition policy”, targeting merger control in particular. At least since the rail merger between Siemens and Alstom was prohibited in 2019, Berlin and Paris have been pushing for the standards of merger control to be relaxed in order to allow the emergence of globally competitive large companies. Several other member states take a more critical view.
Podszun also warns against such relaxations: He certainly sees a need for reform, not only with regard to killer acquisitions. “However, if a reform of merger control ultimately leads to a weakening of merger control, that would be bitter.”
The new Commission is now facing tricky competition policy and practical challenges, says Jens Peter Schmidt, partner at the law firm Noerr in Brussels. It will now have to find new ways of continuing to review strategic takeovers of small, particularly innovative companies. According to Vestager, the Commission now wants to examine further steps “to ensure that the Commission is able to examine the few cases where a transaction would have an impact in Europe but otherwise does not meet the EU notification thresholds”.
Podszun now believes that the antitrust authorities in the member states have a duty to act first. Germany already introduced a purchase price threshold in 2017 in order to be able to review takeovers of companies with low turnover but high valuations. “The Federal Cartel Office is therefore better placed to deal with cases in which start-ups are acquired than the Commission.”
Max von Thun is in favor of a reform of the European Merger Regulation. Like Podszun, he points to the possibility of introducing a purchase price threshold based on the market value of the merger. Alternatively, as in the UK, a control threshold based on the size of the buyer could be introduced.
Liberal MEP and competition rapporteur Stéphanie Yon-Courtin is also in favor of a reform of the Merger Regulation. “Turnover is not everything”, she warns with reference to the current turnover threshold. In her eyes, killer acquisitions not only endanger competitiveness, but also Europe’s strategic interests, for example in the event that innovative European companies are bought up and liquidated by US groups.
In addition to a reform of existing regulation, she also calls for a sectoral approach that focuses on strategically important cutting-edge technologies. Especially in the technologies in which Europe wants to be strong in the future, no killer acquisitions should be allowed, says Yon-Courtin.
In her opinion, the ECJ ruling comes at a good time at the start of a new mandate and before the new Commission is confirmed. “This is a topic on which we can question the new Competition Commissioner”, she announces.
Before being confirmed by Parliament, the Commissioners-designate have to undergo intensive questioning in the parliamentary committees. Sometimes Parliament succeeds in extracting specific promises from the future Commissioners during these interviews. Even if it is not yet known who the new Competition Commissioner will be: What is clear is that he or she will have to have an answer ready on how to deal with killer acquisitions.
There is a silent environmental crisis unfolding around us. Chemicals, such as lead and nitrogen, are in our soil, our water supply and our household products, often going unseen, but with dire results. For example, we have only begun to understand the true magnitude of lead poisoning, its impact on cardiovascular disease and our children’s ability to learn. There is no safe level of lead in the human body.
World Bank research shows that 5.5 million people worldwide die prematurely from cardiovascular disease related to lead exposure every year, and that on average, children under five lose nearly 6 IQ points in low- and middle- income countries. These kids are being set up to fail, losing out on a chance to lead healthy, productive lives.
The cost of this loss could be over 11% of lifetime income for children who participate in the labor force, as each lost IQ point can reduce income by two percent. It’s a huge – and hidden – burden on economic development.
And lead is just one example. 60 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer transfers into our air and water, decimating fish stocks, creating air pollution, and contributing to climate change. Cadmium, which is found in batteries, electronics, and paint, can cause kidney failure and cancer. In most cases, it is the poor and vulnerable who are impacted the most by chemical pollution. It is time to act for a planet free of harm from chemicals and waste.
Chemicals are necessary for our development. They allow us to manufacture products such as medicines and fertilizer. They will be essential for the technologies such as solar panels and batteries that we need for a low carbon future to tackle the climate crisis. And sometimes they just make our lives easier. But the way we currently produce and use chemicals and spread waste around the world – single-use plastics, discarded electronics, obsolete pesticides, air pollution from industry and fossil fuels – not only jeopardizes people’s health, it also destroys nature and undermines achieving the sustainable development goals.
However, this is not a doom and gloom situation. We have concrete examples of the world taking joint action and successfully removing harmful pollutants. Global efforts have removed lead from gasoline, the Montreal Protocol has stopped the depletion of the ozone layer.
There is new global momentum to tackle chemical pollution. One year ago, the world agreed on the Global Framework on Chemicals. It encompasses and encourages action by many sectors and stakeholders: governments, industry, NGOs, international organizations. This is a massive achievement, but only a first step. Now we must fill it with life, action, capacity, and finance.
We have seen a promising tide of change since just last year. Governments are beginning to implement the Framework at the national level. A Global Framework on Chemicals Fund has been set up and begun its work, with support from Germany (20 million euros contribution) and other donors, including the chemical industry. The Fund will help developing countries strengthen their capacity to sustainably manage chemicals, in a way tailored to their needs. International organizations are coordinating their actions and working with partners on programs to implement the Framework, to ensure that economic development does not mean living in a polluted environment.
To ensure more sustainable and sound chemical management we must continue to work across society: the chemical industry must invest in green and sustainable chemistry to anticipate, replace, avoid and prevent the adverse effects of large scale chemical use. Governments must have the insights, political will and capacity to set guardrails for use of chemicals. And as consumers and civil society we must be smart: not every product that appears to make our daily lives easier is also good for us.
We must come together to govern overuse and safe management of chemicals, and to ensure that communities around the world do not get pulled back into poverty due to the impacts of pollution. We have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren a livable and pollution-free planet.
The World Bank Group and Germany are fully committed to this agenda. This week, leaders are gathering for the 3rd Berlin Forum to discuss the way forward. We call on all actors to play their part in making the Global Framework on Chemicals an effective agreement. Only together can we succeed. This is a huge task – but also an important opportunity: for our generation to reverse the current trends, for a healthy planet and for safer living conditions for our children.
Steffi Lemke is Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, Germany. Axel van Trotsenburg is Senior Managing Director, World Bank.