English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Case C-633/16 Ernst &amp; Young P/S v Konkurrencerådet [2018] OJ C 259, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 31 May 2018  The CJEU has issued its judgment in respect of the request for a preliminary ruling related to an alleged Danish gun-jumping case, concerning the acquisition by Ernst &amp; Young P/S of KPMG DK companies.  The main proceedings concerned the appeal by Ernst &amp; Young P/S against the Danish Competition Council’s Decision under which KPMG DK companies had infringed the standstill obligation under the Danish Law on Competition.  The CJEU has clarified that the scope of the standstill obligation must be interpreted as meaning that a concentration is implemented only by a transaction which, in whole or in part, in fact or in law, contributes to the change in the control of the target undertaking. Following this reasoning, the CJEU has considered that the termination notice of a cooperation agreement has not established an infringement of the standstill obligation, having considered that the notice has not given Ernst &amp; Young P/S control over KPMG DK companies.

european competition and regulatory law review

Standstill Obligation Must Be Applied Only to Operations Contributing to Lasting Change in Control of Target Undertaking (C-633/16 EY v Konkurrencerådet)