Implementing a transaction without prior approval from the Competition Authority (known as gun-jumping) is not advisable. In such instances, the Competition Authority imposes relatively significant fines, as we all might have noticed from the actual decision-making practice.

But is it possible to "double" a single fine for the same gun-jumping?

Yes. In its recent decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) confirmed that it is justifiable to impose two separate fines for the same gun-jumping offence, i.e. for breaching standstill rules and failing to notify a transaction to the European Commission. It also ruled out that it cannot be regarded as a prohibition of double punishment.

The ECJ's reasoning is intriguing. In the case (Altice Europe v European Commission, case T-425/18), Altice was a company which exercised decisive influence over a target company even before obtaining prior approval from the European Commission. The ECJ confirmed that the company breached the notification obligation (i.e. breach of the obligation to act) andthe standstill obligation (breach of the obligation not to act, i.e. not toexercise decisive influence over a target company prior to obtaining approval from the European Commission). According to the ECJ's reasoning, these are two separate infringements. The former constitutes an instantaneous infringement and the latter constitutes a continuous infringement.

Altice was ultimately issued two separate fines: one amounting to EUR 52.9 million for breaching the notification obligation and another totalling EUR 62.5 million for violating the standstill obligation.

Author: Vladěna Svobodová

‍