Anita Magraner Oliver

Contact:Read more about Anita Magraner Oliver

The European Commission (EC) has published a draft of its long-awaited revision of the Merger Guidelines (Draft Guidelines), combining the 2004 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and 2008 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines into a single document that is organized around different theories of harm and endeavors to achieve five principal objectives: (1) to take account of the Draghi Report’s call for more dynamic, forward-looking merger control; (2) to acknowledge the benefits of scale, resilience, innovation, and global competitiveness; (3) to reflect the evolution in EC practice over the past 20 years; (4) to tighten the rules for acquisitions by dominant companies; and (5) to signal a greater readiness to take positive account of efficiencies and other benefits. 

On January 13, 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the French Cour de cassation (“French Supreme Court”) confirmed its established case law according to which the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) may seize attorney-client documents covered by legal professional privilege (“LPP”) where these were not “prepared for the exercise of a party’s rights of the defense”, i.e., to defend a client who committed, or believes it committed, an offense liable to result in ongoing or anticipated judicial or regulatory proceedings and sanctions.[1]

On January 9, 2026, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) published the results of its third study on the French leniency procedure.[1]  The Study publishes feedback from more than 60 competition law practitioners on (i) the impact of procedural changes introduced in 2023, (ii) the key factors that encourage or discourage undertakings from applying for leniency, and (iii) the impact of potential follow-on damage actions on leniency applications.  The FCA will determine on the basis of the responses whether and how to adapt its leniency program.

On November 1, 2025, the Commission issued a policy brief[1] in which it rejected calls to extend the legal professional privilege to in-house counsel communication. The Commission examined the question after stakeholders called for such an extension as part of the revision process of the regulation governing antitrust investigation, Regulation 1/2003.[2]

On October 15, 2025, the French Cour de cassation (“Court”) confirmed a €680,000 fine on the trade union Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France (“CDF”) (“Decision”).[1]  The Court held that the CDF’s call for a boycott of certain dental care networks constituted a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article L. 420-1 of the French Commercial Code.[2]

The French Cour de cassation confirms the FCA’s independence in settlement-referral procedures and classifies information exchanges between tenderers, including when exploring subcontracting, as a restriction by object.[1]

On September 24, 2025, the French Cour de cassation upheld the sanction imposed by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) on Vinci group entities active in construction and technical services, and on their subsidiary Santerne Nord Tertiaire (“Santerne”), for unlawful exchanges of confidential information during a public tender procedure.

As part of our response to the European Commission’s consultation on possible reforms to its merger control guidelines,[1] we provided our views on Topic C – Innovation And Other Dynamic Elements In Merger Control.

On September 8, 2025, the Commission imposed a fine of around €172,000 on Eurofield SAS and its parent company, Unanime Sport SAS, for providing incomplete information during an ongoing antitrust investigation. This marks the first time the Commission has imposed a fine for the provision of incomplete information in reply to a request for information (“RFI”) in the context of an antitrust procedure.[1] The Commission announced it “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future.” [2]

On April 17, 2025, further to an appeal lodged by a competitor (Valocîme), the Conseil d’Etat upheld the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) decision[1] approving Phoenix Tower International (“PTI”) as purchaser of the passive mobile infrastructure assets which Cellnex had committed to divest as part of the FCA’s review of its acquisition of Hivory.[2]  The Conseil d’Etat approved the FCA’s analysis of the independence of the proposed purchaser as well as the absence of new adverse competitive effects due to the purchaser’s acquisition of the divested assets.

In two rulings of April 8, 2025, the French Cour de cassation confirmed that dawn raids may lawfully be conducted at employees’ private residences without requiring additional safeguards beyond those set out in the French Commercial Code.[1]