Skip to content
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

 On 30 June 2022, the Council of the EU (the “Council”) and the European Parliament (the “Parliament”) reached a much awaited agreement on the proposal of the European Commission (the “Commission”) for the Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (the “FSR”) (see our alert on the proposal). This political agreement swiftly concludes the trilogue discussions initiated in the beginning of May this year, after the Council (see our blog post) and the Parliament (see our blog post) each adopted their own positions. The agreement has been approved by the Permanent Representatives Committee (“COREPER”) of the Council on 13 July and the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament on 14 July.

The FSR grants substantial new powers to the Commission and “will help close the regulatory gap whereby subsidies granted by non-EU governments currently go largely unchecked”, according to remarks from Executive Vice-President of the Commission, Margrethe Vestager. It will be deeply transformative for M&A and public procurement in the EU.

The agreement on the FSR did not lead to any major changes in the proposal made by the Commission. The most notable points of discussion between the Parliament and Council and the outcome of this agreement are:

  • The thresholds above which companies are obliged to inform the Commission about their foreign subsidies remain unchanged compared to the Commission’s proposal;
  • The time period in which the Commission has to investigate foreign subsidies in large public procurement has been reduced. In the same way, the retroactive application of the FSR has been limited to foreign subsidies granted in the five years prior to the application of the regulation;
  • The Commission will issue guidelines on the existence of a distortion, the balancing test and its power to request notification of non-notifiable transactions, at the latest three years after the entry into force of the FSR; and
  • A commitment to a multilateral approach to foreign subsidies above the FSR and the possibility for the Commission to engage in a dialogue with third countries has been included.
Continue Reading The Council of the EU and the European Parliament agree on the Foreign Subsidies Regulation

On 30 May 2022, the European Union (“EU”) adopted the revised Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (No. 2022/869) (the “TEN-E Regulation 2022”), which replaces the previous rules laid down in Regulation No. 347/2013 (the “TEN-E Regulation 2013”) that aimed to improve security of supply, market integration, competition and sustainability in the energy sector. The TEN-E Regulation 2022 seeks to better support the modernisation of Europe’s cross-border energy infrastructures and the EU Green Deal objectives.

The three most important things you need to know about the TEN-E Regulation 2022:

  • Projects may qualify as Projects of Common Interest (“PCI”) and be selected on an EU list if (i) they fall within the identified priority corridors and (ii) help achieve EU’s overall energy and climate policy objectives in terms of security of supply and decarbonisation. The TEN-E Regulation 2022 updates its priority corridors to address the EU Green Deal objectives, while extending their scope to include projects connecting the EU with third countries, namely Projects of Mutual Interest (“PMI”).
  • PCIs and PMIs on the EU list must be given priority status to ensure rapid administrative and judicial treatment.
  • PCIs and PMIs will be eligible for EU financial assistance. Member States will also be able to grant financial support subject to State aid rules.
Continue Reading The European Union adopted new rules for the Trans-European Networks for Energy

On 22 March 2022, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued two separate preliminary rulings – Bpost and Nordzucker – which clarify how the protection against double jeopardy (“non bis in idem principle”) should be applied in instances where an identical competition law infringement is sanctioned in parallel investigations, either by different regulatory authorities of the same EU Member State or by multiple national competition authorities (“NCAs”) from different EU Member States.

The key takeaways from the two judgments are as follows:

  • the non bis in idem principle applies to competition law due to the criminal aspect embedded in the relevant administrative penalties;
  • the non bis in idem principle only applies if the facts are identical – a mere reference to a fact in a decision is not sufficient to demonstrate that an authority has ruled on that element;
  • different national authorities can impose fines for an identical infringement if the legislation on which they rely pursues complementary objectives;
  • the non bis in idem principle also applies to situations where an NCA has granted leniency to a company such that only a declaratory finding infringement (without fine) can be made.

Background

In Bpost, the ECJ  examined whether the Belgian NCA could impose a fine on Bpost for an abuse of a dominant position (through the application of a rebate system) even though Bpost had already been fined for the same rebate system by the Belgian postal regulator.

Continue Reading European Court of Justice clarifies scope of protection against double jeopardy in successive antitrust investigations

In Enel, a judgment of 12 May 2022 (C-377/20), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) complemented the framework for analysing exclusionary abuses developed in earlier case-law, notably where it applies to a context of market liberalisation:

  • Abuse: The concept of “abuse” relates to conduct that departs from “competition on the merits”. Conduct that an equally efficient competitor can replicate is generally not abusive (“equally efficient competitor test”).
  • Anti-competitive effects: While it is not necessary to demonstrate actual anti-competitive effects or the company’s intention to carry out an exclusionary strategy, such factors are relevant in assessing whether the conduct is abusive or not.
  • Harm: Conduct that harms consumers indirectly as a result of its effect on the structure of the market is per se abusive; it is not required to demonstrate an actual or potential direct harm to consumers.
  • Objective justification: The prohibition set out in Article 102 TFEU does not prohibit   conduct that is objectively justified and proportionate, or where the behaviour is counterbalanced or outweighed by pro-consumer efficiency-benefits.

The judgment largely endorses the opinion of Advocate General Rantos (see our blog post), but adds some important nuance.

Continue Reading The CJEU sets out an analytic framework on exclusionary abuses in the context of market liberalisation

On 1 March 2022, the European Commission (“Commission”) published drafts of the revised Research & Development Block Exemption Regulation (“R&D BER”) and Specialization Block Exemption Regulation (“Specialisation BER”, together the “Horizontal Block Exemption Regulations” or “HBERs”) as well as the accompanying Horizontal Guidelines for stakeholder comments. …
Continue Reading Sustainability in the European Commission’s revised horizontal block exemption regulations and guidelines

On 23 March 2022, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted a Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia (the “Framework”). In a similar fashion to the temporary framework that the Commission has adopted to address the COVID-19 outbreak (the…
Continue Reading The Commission’s Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia

Introduction

The European Commission (the ‘Commission’) formally adopted on 27 January 2022 its new Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy (‘CEEAG’). The CEEAG replace the guidelines which were in force since 2014 (EEAG) and integrate the new objectives of the EU Green Deal of a reduction of 55% net greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 1990 levels by 2030 and of carbon neutrality by 2050. The Commission has estimated that achieving the new 2030 target would require EUR 390 billion of additional annual investment compared to the levels in 2011-2020, an investment that cannot be borne by the private sector alone, and would therefore require public investments.

Application

The CEEAG apply from 27 January 2022 to aid for environmental protection, including climate protection, and energy that is awarded or intended to be awarded as of that date. Member States must also adapt their existing support schemes to comply with the CEEAG by 2024. The CEEAG set out the criteria under which the Commission will assess whether aid may be authorised. These assessment criteria relate to a positive condition, i.e. whether the aid facilitates the development of certain economic activities within the Union, and a negative condition, i.e. whether such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

The Commission will only assess the aid under the CEEAG in the situations where the aid does not already fall under the exemptions of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). The GBER allows aid under certain ceilings without the need for Commission’s scrutiny. It is noteworthy that the GBER is currently under revision to align with the European Green Deal objectives and to complement the CEEAG.
Continue Reading The Commission adopts its new Climate, Energy and Environmental Aid Guidelines (CEEAG)

On 25 November 2021, the Commission adopted its revised Communication on the Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (“IPCEI”). This is particularly relevant for companies who have breakthrough innovative projects and…
Continue Reading The Commission has revised its communication on the Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (“IPCEI”)

…
Continue Reading The French Competition Authority gives its views on the competition issues arising from Fintech

On 6 May 2021, the European Commission (“Commission”) published the findings of its evaluation of the horizontal block exemption regulations for Research & Development (“R&D BER”) and specialisation agreements (“Specialisation BER”, together “HBERs”), as well as the accompanying Horizontal Guidelines (“Evaluation”).

The Commission launched the Evaluation in 2019 to assess the future relevance of the HBERs and the Horizontal Guidelines, since their adoption in 2011 and 2012.  It gathered a variety of evidence on the functioning of the HBERs, which included:
Continue Reading The European Commission publishes the results of its evaluation of the horizontal block exemption regulations and guidelines