Phase I

The number of deals cleared by the EC in phase I (in non-simplified cases) subject to remedies has decreased from 16% of cases in 2015-2019 to 11% in 2020-2024. During the same period, the number of withdrawals increased by 1%, while the percentage of decisions referred to phase II has remained the same. This trend indicates that in the past five years, it has become statistically more likely to achieve unconditional clearance in phase I than in the preceding five years.

The upward trend in intervention reached its peak in 2018. The EC reviews less complicated (non-simplified) cases each year. In 2023 and 2024, the EC concluded less than 60 non-simplified Phase I cases.

Phase II

There were less phase II cases in 2020-2024 than in 2015-2019, but the phase II intervention rates have increased. The share of prohibition decisions has decreased, from 13% to 9%, but the number of cases which were withdrawn or abandoned has, however, more than doubled, from 15% to 34%. The percentage of deals not getting through climbed from 28% in 2015-2019 to 45% in 2020-2024. 

In 2015, a phase II investigation lasted almost 12 months, including prenotification and formal review. In 2024 that number was more than 18 months, an increase of more than 50%. As of 2019, the prenotification duration of phase II cases appears to have stabilised, but the formal review duration has steadily increased since that year.

Phase II case duration – prenotification and formal review duration in months

The increase in the duration of the formal review can partly be attributed to the increased use of the stop-the-clock mechanism. From 2015-2017, only 40% of cases had at least one stop-the-clock. For the period 2022 to 2024 this percentage is 77%.  

Phase II cases with at least one stop-the-clock since 2012

The long-term trend in prenotification duration of phase I remedies cases is still upward, but we may have seen a peak in 2023 with an average duration of over 10 months. In 2015, on average, the prenotification period was 4 months. In 2024, the duration was more than 8 months.  

Phase I cases - prenotification duration in months

For phase I unconditional approval cases, the long-term trend is upward, with 2022 setting a new record. In 2015, on average, the prenotification period was over 2.5 months. In 2024, this duration was over 5 months, an increase of more than 100%.

Data points for prenotification and formal review duration that fall outside a two (prenotification) or three (formal review duration) standard deviation boundary are not included in the graphs on this page.

There were 185 normal procedure, or ‘non-simplified’, decisions in 2022-2024, representing only 17% of all decisions. In 2015-2017, there were more, 299, representing 29% of all notifications.

The remaining complex cases receive more intense scrutiny by the EC. For example, we see that the EC applies a broader range of theories of harm in these cases. In 2014-2016, the EC predominantly applied a horizontal theory of harm in almost 50% of its decisions. Fast forward to 2020-2023, this percentage has decreased to less than 40%. This reveals a transformation in the predominant theory of harm, moving from predominantly focusing on horizontal issues to other types of concerns. 

The number of decisions with a significant vertical assessment (++ or + value) has increased from 10% in 2015 to more than 30% in 2024.

The data in this graph is based on text recognition software applied to a database of EU merger control decisions. The software attributes a numerical value to each decision based on key phrases. Whether or not a decision is qualified as significant, depends on how the value compares to the average values for the same type of decision in the dataset. For example, a phase I remedies decision’s relevance will be determined in relation to the average values for all phase I remedies cases.

The EC is increasingly requiring up-front buyer remedies, where the parties cannot close the transaction before having entered into a binding agreement with an approved purchaser. This occurs where the purchaser criteria set by the EC limit the likely number of suitable purchasers.

The use of fix-it-first remedies was relatively frequent between 2016 and 2019, but then fell out of favour. In 2024, they made a comeback. In a fix-it first scenario, the parties must identify a purchaser, have it approved by the EC and enter into a binding agreement before clearance.