Advocate General Emiliou suggests setting aside the General Court's decision and annulling the Commission's actions regarding the Illumina-Grail merger. The case questions whether the Commission can review a merger referred by Member States lacking the authority to review it under national law. The merger involves Illumina acquiring Grail, both US-based companies. The Advocate General argues that the Merger Regulation does not grant the Commission the power to review such mergers, as it would extend its jurisdiction significantly and lack efficiency and legal certainty. This opinion is not binding, but it highlights potential implications for competition law advisors in understanding the limits of the Commission's merger control authority.

Advocate General's Opinion on Illumina-Grail Merger Case

Advocate General Emiliou's opinion in cases C-611/22 P and C-625/22 P challenges the Commission's jurisdiction in reviewing the Illumina-Grail merger, involving US companies. The case questions if the Commission can assess mergers referred by Member States without national review powers, as it may exceed its authority under the Merger Regulation, impacting legal certainty and efficiency. This non-binding opinion raises concerns for competition law advisors on the Commission's merger control boundaries.

Advocate General's Opinion on Illumina-Grail Merger Case

Advocate General Emiliou recommends overturning the General Court's decision and annulling the Commission's actions in the Illumina-Grail merger case, questioning the Commission's authority to review mergers referred by Member States without national review powers.