Photo of Johan Ysewyn

Johan Ysewyn

Johan Ysewyn is widely recognised as one of Europe’s leading competition lawyers. As co-Chair of Covington’s Global Competition/Antitrust Practice, Johan brings over three decades of experience advising global corporates and financial institutions on their most complex and high-stakes competition and regulatory matters.

Clients turn to Johan for clear, strategic guidance on merger control, cartel and monopolisation investigations, and other antitrust enforcement actions. His approach is pragmatic and solution-driven, combining deep legal insight with a commercial understanding of his clients’ business.

Leading directories consistently highlight Johan’s exceptional skill and client service: Chambers Global describes him as “an exceptional lawyer who is solution-oriented, has a remarkable ability to rapidly understand our business and has excellent reactivity.” Who’s Who Legal praises his “energy and insight into cartel proceedings,” while Legal 500 calls him “one of the best European competition lawyers” with “a unique understanding of the EC and a very helpful network of connections across Brussels.”

Johan represents clients before competition authorities and courts around the world, leveraging his in-depth knowledge of regulatory processes and strong working relationships with key decision-makers, particularly within the European Commission’s DG COMP, who designated him as one of their Non-Governmental Advisors to the International Competition Network. His advisory practice spans the evolving intersections of competition law with ESG, digital markets, and strategic compliance.  His experience covers a wide range of sectors, including telecommunications, technology, media, financial services, healthcare, consumer goods, retail, energy, and transport.

Johan has extensive experience in global merger control, having advised on numerous complex, cross-border transactions requiring coordination across multiple jurisdictions. His recent merger work includes representing Discovery in its landmark acquisition of Warner Bros. and advising Illumina on its acquisition of Grail—both recognised as award-winning deals in the competition community. Johan’s merger practice spans a wide range of sectors, from media and technology to healthcare and energy, and he is known for navigating the most challenging regulatory reviews with strategic foresight and precision.

Renowned for his expertise in global cartel enforcement, Johan has represented immunity applicants and defendants in major cases involving industries such as financial services, consumer goods, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and energy. He also advised the European Payments Council in the first European Commission investigation into standardisation agreements in the e-payments sector. A recognised thought leader, Johan co-authors the European Cartel Digest and lectures on cartel law and economics at the Brussels School of Competition.

In addition, Johan is one of Europe’s foremost practitioners in EU State aid law, advising both governments and beneficiaries. His experience includes landmark cases involving leading banks and airlines such as Fortis, KBC, Dexia, Arco, Citadele, airBaltic, and Riga Airport.

Contact:Read more about Johan YsewynEmail

What are the key take-aways of the mission letter to Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, EVP-designate responsible for EU competition policy?

On 17 September 2024, European Commission (“Commission”) President Ursula von der Leyen (“President”), announced her proposed College of Commissioners (“College”) for her second 5-year term. The Commissioners-designate still need to be confirmed by the European Parliament (“EP”).

Of particularly interest from a competition policy perspective is the President’s mission letter (“Mission Letter”) to Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, the designated Executive Vice-President (“EVP-designate”) for a “Clean, Just and Competitive Transition”. The Mission Letter sets out the priorities and action plans of the European Commission for the next 5 years.

In this blogpost, we introduce EVP-designate Ribera and the tasks which the President has set for her, specifically on competition policy. 

About EVP-designate Ribera

Like many of her colleague Commissioners, past and present, EVP-designate Riberahas held several national ministerial posts: she has been serving as Spain’s Minister for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge since 2018 and has had two consecutive terms as Vice-President of the Spanish Government since 2020. She has also been serving as a member of the Spanish Parliament since 2019.

A lawyer by training, EVP-designate Riberahas also held high-level private and public posts focusing on sustainable development and climate change. She served as Spain’s State Secretary for Climate Change (2008-2011) and as director of the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (2014-2018) – likely suitable experience given indications in her Mission Letter that these topics will only gain in relevance, both for the Commission and its competition portfolio.Continue Reading New Commissioner, New Mission, New Policy for Competition?

On 18 July 2024, the current President of the European Commission (“Commission”), Ursula von der Leyen, was reconfirmed by the European Parliament for a second 5-year term. As part of her reconfirmation, President von der Leyen delivered a speech before the European Parliament, complemented by a 30-page program, which lays down the Commission’s political program for the next five years.

A key pillar of the program – “A new plan for Europe’s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness” – has the objective of combining competitiveness and prosperity with the achievement of the European Green Deal goals.

Specifically on competition policy, according to President von der Leyen, a new approach is needed to achieve this objective. This blog post projects where competition policy is likely headed in the 2024-2029 period by commenting on the most relevant paragraphs of the program.

Von der Leyen: “I believe we need a new approach to competition policy, better geared to our common goals and more supportive of companies scaling up in global markets – while always ensuring a level playing field. This should be reflected in the way we assess mergers so that innovation and resilience are fully taken into account. We will ensure competition policy keeps pace with evolving global markets and prevents market concentration from raising prices or lowering the quality of goods or services for consumers. We will look at all of our policies through a security lens.”

  • This statement reaffirms the classic principles underlying competition law, i.e., the focus on ensuring a level playing field, preventing market concentration, and ultimately avoiding a negative impact on prices/quality of goods or services.
  • However, the President’s comments recognize the impact of global dynamics and the need for EU companies to be able to respond to global pressures. In the context of Siemens/Alstom and Lufthansa/ITA, there is growing pressure from EU Member States to allow European champions and this program could signal an openness to that effect.
  • The President also calls for an increased focus on innovation and resilience in the substantive assessment of mergers. This could mean (i) that the Commission will expand its assessment of the impact of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards and security, (ii) that the Commission would be open to a greater role of wider efficiency justifications/public interest considerations in merger control and competition law assessments, and/or (iii) that the impact on the overall economic competitiveness of the EU, and the aim of geopolitical de-risking for critical supply chains and technologies, may play an increasingly important role in the assessment of mergers.

Continue Reading The 2024-2029 Commission Political Guidelines: Where Is Competition Policy Likely Headed?

On 10 July 2023, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted the Implementing Regulation (“IR”) for the European Union (“EU”) Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”). The FSR, which starts to apply today, 12 July 2023, creates a new instrument designed to prevent foreign subsidies from distorting the EU internal market (see our blog). The objective is to level the playing field within EU markets between companies subject to scrutiny under the EU State aid rules and companies receiving subsidies from non-EU Member States.

To attain this objective, the FSR empowers the Commission to assess foreign subsidies either on its own motion or after the notification of concentrations or public procurement tenders in the EU where certain thresholds are exceeded. Foreign subsidies are financial contributions (i.e. any value transfer) granted by non-EU countries, or entities whose action can be attributed to a non-EU country (i.e. foreign financial contributions or “FFC”) that confer a benefit that is not available on the market, specifically to one or to several companies or industries. Where foreign subsidies are problematic, this assessment may lead to remedies and even to the prohibition of the concentration or of the award of a public contract. Although the FSR starts to apply on 12 July 2023, allowing the Commission to investigate foreign subsidies on its own motion, the notification obligations only kick in on 12 October 2023. That means that notification may be requested for transactions signed after 12 July but not closed by 12 October and for public procurement procedures initiated after 12 July.

The purpose of the IR is to set out the rules applicable to proceedings conducted by the Commission under the FSR, including the submission of notifications.

Key things you need to know about the IR and the notification obligations:

  • The IR enacts the forms that notifying parties will have to complete and submit to the Commission in the context of concentrations and public procurement tenders.
  • The Commission must review foreign subsidies within statutory time limits that start to run as soon as the notification is complete and that may be suspended to obtain further information.
  • Detailed information must be submitted for FFCs that are considered to fall into the most distortive categories of foreign subsidies, whereas aggregate information must be provided for most other FFCs.
  • Information must be provided for FFCs provided to all group entities of the party or parties involved.
  • Companies that are likely to be involved in large concentrations or public procurements would be well advised to prepare sufficiently well in advance to avoid delays in their clearance timeline.

Continue Reading The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation starts to apply – what you need to know about the notification obligations

Various national competition authorities (“NCAs”) are continuing to consider sustainability arguments in competition cases. However, NCAs are increasingly diverging in their approach as to whether, and to what extent, they are willing to allow sustainability considerations in the competition law framework. This blogpost highlights a few recent developments in jurisdictions on both sides of the Atlantic.

Belgian approval of an initiative in the banana sector

On 30 March 2023, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) approved a sustainability initiative concerning living wages in the banana industry. This marks the first initiative based on sustainability grounds  approved by the Belgian NCA.

The IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative, a social enterprise working with various entities towards facilitating sustainable trade in global supply chains, and five Belgian supermarkets proposed a collaboration scheme aimed at closing the gap between actual wages and living wages in the banana sector. The collaboration will consist of meetings and discussions where the companies’ internal conduct will be assessed and further developed with the aim to better support living wages for workers in the participants’ banana supply chains.

The collaboration will involve the exchange of certain data and information which the BCA did not consider anticompetitive. The participants have committed to not set mandatory or recommended minimum prices and to not communicate any changes in costs relating to their supply chains. IDH will supervise the collaboration and any data shared will be verified by an independent third party.

Similar initiatives concerning the banana sector  have been proposed in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. The German NCA has already approved the proposed initiative. Neither the Belgian nor the German NCA considered the initiatives in question to infringe competition law. There is, however, a fine line between such agreements falling in or outside the scope of competition law, and potentially amounting to an infringement. For example, clauses which lead to non-negligible price increases for end-consumers could raise questions and potentially be considered to have anticompetitive effect. It can therefore be expected that that NCAs will periodically monitor the implementation of such initiatives.Continue Reading Sustainability Agreements: Potential Divergence between Authorities

As part of “A Green Deal Industrial Plan for the Net Zero Age” to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (see our alert), the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted on 9 March 2023 its Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia (the “TCTF”). The text amends the Temporary Crisis Framework last amended on 28 October 2022 (see our blog). 

These are the three most important things you need to know about the TCTF:

  • To avoid that an investment would be located outside the European Economic Area (EEA), EU countries may support investments in the manufacturing of relevant equipment for the transition towards a net-zero economy, such as batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS), as well as their key components and critical raw materials necessary for their production. They may even grant aid matching foreign subsidies to support those investments, provided that they are located in the poorer areas of the EU.
  • EU countries’ possibilities to grant aid for accelerating the rollout of renewable energy are extended to any renewable technologies, including hydropower, and no longer require a bidding process to select the aided projects that are considered as less mature.
  • The TCTF is not a subsidy program, and it is up to EU Member States to provide public funding.

Aid to cover investment costs for the production of relevant equipment for the transition towards a net-zero economyContinue Reading The Commission adopts its Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework relaxing State aid rules as a response to the US Inflation Reduction Act

European Union (“EU”) Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”), a new state aid instrument adopted at the end of 2022, will have a significant impact on transactions in the EU. The FSR impacts any company that is present in or wants the enter the EU, and has received financial support in any form from non-EU governments. 

The FSR is game-changing — it imposes notification obligations on companies on subsidies received from non-EU countries and, when those subsidies are considered to distort the internal market in the EU, the European Commission (“EC”) can impose remedies.

Companies will now have notification obligations if they have received foreign financial contributions above a certain amount and are:

(1)    acquiring a company that has a turnover of at least EUR 500 million in the EU, or

(2)    participating in a public tender with a value of EUR 250 million.

These notification obligations will start to apply on 12 October 2023.Continue Reading EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation – Key Takeaways

Regulation (EU) 2022/2560 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (FSR) entered into force on 12 January 2023 and will start to apply as of 12 July 2023.

The FSR creates a brand new instrument to fill a regulatory gap, by preventing foreign subsidies from distorting the European Union (EU) internal market. Whereas companies receiving public support in the EU are subject to strict State aid rules, companies obtaining public support outside the EU are generally not. This was perceived as putting companies in the EU at a disadvantage compared to companies that obtained subsidies outside the EU, but that also engaged in economic activity in the Union.

The FSR’s scope extends far beyond the obvious State support, to cover common types of benefits that are granted all over the world, including in countries driven by a market economy. Its obligations will inevitably place an additional administrative burden on companies engaging in an economic activity in the EU. Acceptance of a foreign subsidy distorting the EU internal market may have far-reaching consequences for the company. The FSR places additional compliance obligations on companies, and for many will entail a thorough assessment to identify and justify foreign subsidies received. For companies considering transactions in the EU, the FSR effectively creates a third layer of deal conditionality, besides merger control and Foreign Direct Investment laws. This is adding a further unique set of thresholds, timings and factual considerations, to be included in companies’ strategies to invest in the EU. This will require expertise in EU antitrust and State aid law, and a good understanding of the details of the FSR.

Key things you need to know:Continue Reading The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation enters into force

On 19 October 2022, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted its new State aid Framework for research, development and innovation (the “2022 RDI aid Framework”). This instrument governs Member States’ investment in RDI activities. It is an important response to the 2020 Commission Communication on a new European Research Area for Research and Innovation (the “ERA Communication”), aiming at strengthening investments and reaching a 3% GDP investment target in the field of RDI. The 2022 RDI aid Framework is a revision of the previous version of 2014.

The three most important things you need to know about the 2022 RDI aid Framework are:

  • The Commission’s approval is subject to a set of criteria to determine whether the aid is justified and can be authorised, and compliance with recent EU objectives such as the EU Green Deal and the EU Industrial and Digital Strategies will have a positive influence on the Commission’s assessment;
  • RDI activities now explicitly include digitalisation and digital technologies; and
  • Member States can grant aid for testing and experimentation infrastructures which predominantly provide services to undertakings for R&D activities closer to the market.

Background

Similarly to its previous version, the 2022 RDI aid Framework recalls the instances where RDI aid does not qualify as a State aid and is therefore not caught by the State aid rules. This would be the case where the aid is granted to non-economic activities conducted by universities or where universities, although publicly funded, engage in RDI activities with companies pursuing commercial goals.Continue Reading The Commission has revised its framework for State aid for research and development and innovation

On 28 October 2022, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted the  second amendment to its Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia (the “Framework”). The second amendment to the Framework extends its duration by one year until 31 December 2023.

The four most important things you need to know about this amendment are:

  • Maximum aid amounts have been increased;
  • Guarantees or subsidised interests can now cover larger amounts of loans when taken by large energy utilities companies that provide financial collateral for trading activities on energy markets. Exceptionally, guarantees can also be provided as unfunded financial collateral directly to central counterparts or clearing members to cover the liquidity needs of energy companies, to clear their trading activities on energy markets;
  • To achieve the EU targets of reducing electricity consumption in response to high energy prices, Member States may provide compensation for genuine reductions in electricity consumption; and
  • State recapitalisations are not subject to detailed rules as under the COVID-19 Temporary Framework, however the Commission highlights the general principles it will use to assess them on a case-by-case basis. 

Continue Reading The Commission prolongs and amends its Temporary Crisis Framework relaxing State aid rules to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia

On 22 June 2022, the EU’s General Court (“GC”) fully dismissed thyssenkrupp’s appeal against the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision to block its proposed joint venture (“JV”) with Tata Steel in 2019.

This is the first time that the GC has considered the prohibition of a “gap” case under the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”) since it annulled the Commission’s prohibition of CK Hutchison’s proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK (O2) in 2020 (“CK Hutchison”) (see our previous blog post here). A “gap” case is a merger in an oligopolistic market that does not result in the creation or strengthening of an individual or collective dominant position. Rather, it risks causing a “significant impediment to effective competition”.

This result may indicate a return to a more traditional approach by the GC as regards “gap” cases than that demonstrated in the CK Hutchison judgment. The judgment also provides helpful guidance on the interpretation of the EUMR and other legal instruments (such as the Market Definition Notice and the Notice on Remedies). The key findings are:Continue Reading EU General Court Upholds Tata Steel/thyssenkrupp JV Prohibition