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…

Continue Reading New Commissioner, New Mission, New Policy for Competition?

On 3 September 2024, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) published its highly-anticipated judgment in Illumina/Grail v Commission (Joined Cases C‑611/22 P and C‑625/22 P) (“ECJ Judgment”), regarding the scope of application of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (“EUMR”).

The ECJ set aside the EU General Court (“GC”) judgment (Case T‑227/21) and ruled that the European Commission (“Commission”) does not have jurisdiction over transactions referred to it by the national competition authorities of EU Member States (“NCAs”) if the transactions do not meet the national thresholds of the referring EU Member States.

Key takeaways

  • Based on a historical, contextual, and teleological interpretation of Article 22 EUMR and the EUMR itself, NCAs cannot ask the Commission to examine transactions which do not meet their national thresholds.
  • Article 22 EUMR provides for a corrective function regarding the allocation of competences between the Commission and NCAs, and is to limit the possibility of multiple parallel notifications, providing legal certainty and facilitating the one-stop shop principle.
  • An amendment of the EUMR thresholds and/or referral rules to capture below-threshold transactions would likely entail a burdensome legislative process and complex negotiations with EU Member States.
  • The Commission can still rely on (i) new thresholds which have by now been introduced in some EU Member States to catch transactions outside the scope of their traditional turnover-based thresholds, and (ii) the possibility for NCAs to review these transactions by means of Article 102 TFEU, which prohibits abuses of a dominant position.

Continue Reading ECJ decides that EU Member States cannot refer below-threshold transactions to the European Commission (Illumina/Grail v Commission)

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

The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”), which creates a new clearance mechanism for non-EU subsidies granted to companies engaging in certain activities in the EU, took effect on 12 July 2023, with notification obligations starting on 12 October 2023. On 22 February 2024 the European Commission’s (“Commission”) Directorate General for Competition (“DG COMP”) published a Policy Brief discussing the 100 days since the start of the notification obligation for concentrations.

This post provides an update to our previous blog post on FSR enforcement expectations for 2024, taking account of the Policy Brief, the reported enforcement activity of the Commission’s Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (“DG GROW”) for public procurement procedures, and the launch of the first in-depth investigation by DG GROW into a public procurement procedure in Bulgaria.

Key Takeaways

  • The Commission does not publish the decisions it adopts after a preliminary review and will not issue guidelines on key concepts underpinning the FSR before 2026. In the meantime it has sought to provide some additional guidance to companies through informal documents such as Q&A pages, news articles, and Policy Briefs. However, it has yet to provide guidance on how it assesses the distortive potential of foreign subsidies. Companies will therefore have to anticipate how such foreign subsidies will be assessed under the FSR, with a view to developing their own narratives to persuade the Commission that any foreign subsidies they may have received are unproblematic.
  • As of 20 January 2024, DG COMP had received 53 (pre-)notifications, higher than the 30 notifications it expected annually in its 2021 FSR proposal. To review these files and launch investigations on its own, DG COMP has been restructured with the creation of a new directorate (Directorate K) from 1 March.
  • As on 19 January, DG GROW, which is in charge of reviewing public procurement procedures, had received over 100 notifications / declarations. DG GROW also opened its first in-depth investigation into foreign subsidies received by CRRC, a Chinese rolling stock manufacturer.

Continue Reading The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation – Key takeaways from the first 100 days

The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) adopted in December 2022 creates a new instrument to prevent foreign subsidies from distorting the European Union (EU) internal market. It aims to fill a perceived regulatory gap left by EU State aid rules applying to subsidies granted by EU countries but not by foreign states. It started to…

Continue Reading What does the new EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) mean for companies doing business in the EU?

The Foreign Subsidies Regulation (“FSR”) enters into force today, 12 July 2023. It 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. Two days ago, on 10 July 2023, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted the Implementing Regulation (“IR”), which sets out the procedure and enacts the notifications forms. 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.Continue Reading Sustainability Agreements: Potential Divergence between Authorities

The European Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, announced on 20 March 2023 that new State aid investigations into “aggressive tax planning” practices of multinationals can be expected. This follows an in-depth inquiry into tax ruling practices in European Union (“EU”) Member States for the period 2014-2018.

While the European Courts have annulled several European Commission (“Commission”) decisions that ordered companies to repay to the State advantages gained from tax rulings, they have decided that State aid law also applies to tax measures, even if direct taxation is a prerogative of Member States. However, as this article sets out, the European Courts have limited the Commission’s review.

In particular, by its judgment of 8 November 2022 in the Fiat Chrysler case (C-885/19 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled a Commission decision ordering Fiat Chrysler to refund EUR 30 million of tax advantages to Luxembourg. It clarifies when a tax ruling can be considered State aid.

These are the key takeaways of this judgment:

  • Although not harmonized at the EU level, direct taxation must comply with State aid rules. Therefore, the Commission may review tax rulings under State aid law and verify, for instance, that the tax system is applied consistently with the objectives pursued.
  • As long as direct taxation is not harmonized at the EU level, it is up to Member States to determine the tax regime applicable to companies. Therefore, the Commission should consider that the normal tax system, against which discriminations favoring certain companies may be State aid, is determined by national law.
  • When examining whether a tax measure favors certain companies over others, the Commission cannot substitute the normal national applicable law with its own standard of normality.

This judgement will likely impact pending investigations into the tax rulings issued to other companies and in ongoing proceedings. It will also set the approach the Commission may take in potential new investigations.

In short, this judgment says that if a tax ruling is issued in compliance with the national legal framework and not manifestly inconsistent with the objectives pursued by the national tax regime, it is unlikely to be State aid.Continue Reading Will the EU Commission start new State aid investigations into multinationals’ tax rulings after of the Court of Justice’s judgment in the Fiat Chrysler case?

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.

Continue Reading The Commission adopts its Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework relaxing State aid rules as a response to the US Inflation Reduction Act