Tue, Jul
71 New Articles

Ukraine: Third Parties’ Intervention in Merger Control Cases – Opportunities and Risks

Ukraine: Third Parties’ Intervention in Merger Control Cases – Opportunities and Risks

Issue 10.6
  • Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

This article explains the tools available under Ukrainian competition law that allow interested third parties (customers, suppliers, competitors, etc.) to participate in the merger review process and protect their rights and interests. It also addresses merging parties’ potential risks associated with the involvement of third parties.

Time for Action

Under Ukrainian law, if a merger may lead to monopolization or significant restriction of competition in the Ukrainian market, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine will conduct an in-depth investigation (Phase II).

While the merger notification is not accessible to the public, the regulator announces the start of Phase II to maintain transparency in the merger review process. This enables any interested party to share their perspective on the proposed transaction and its potential effects on competition. However, it also creates an opportunity for third parties to use this as a means to stall the merger review process.

Grounds and Procedure

A third party (for example, a competitor) who believes that its rights and interests might be significantly restricted due to the notified merger, may request the regulator to permit it to join the investigation proceedings. In practice, there have been instances where minority shareholders of one of the merging parties submitted such requests to the regulator. A third party may submit the request anytime during the investigation, which may delay the merger review process. If the regulator approves the request, the third party will have similar procedural rights as the merging parties, including limited access to case files to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information.

Regulator’s View

In practice, the regulator does not take the information provided by the third party at face value since it may be biased in its influence on the regulator’s decision-making process. Therefore, any request to be involved in the investigation proceedings and objections to the merger which the third party may have should be well grounded and, ideally, supported by solid evidence (for example, expert reports).

Court’s View

If the regulator denies the request, the third party may appeal such decision in court. Under Ukrainian law, the third party would have two months following the receipt of the regulator’s decision to challenge it on the following grounds: (a) non-compliance with or incorrect application of the rules of substantive or procedural law; (b) incomplete investigation of the relevant circumstances of the case and failure to prove the relevant circumstances which the regulator’s decision considers as established; and/or (c) lack of correlation between the case circumstances and the conclusions in the case.

The review of such claims by Ukrainian courts does not automatically terminate the consideration of the merger case. However, if the court dispute makes it impossible to continue considering the merger case, the regulator must suspend the investigation of the merger case pending the outcome of the court dispute.


By employing such strategy, a third party may achieve several goals from administrative and business perspectives.

For example, the regulator would be required to assess information received from the third party in deciding whether to clear the merger, even if it is communicated at a late stage of the investigation. Therefore, it is likely that all or at least some concerns of the third party about the merger would be addressed. This, however, may delay the merger review process. At the same time, by getting involved in the merger case, the third party may create more room for negotiation with the merging parties about their commercial relationships to secure its business position post-merger.

Even though often overlooked, Ukrainian competition law provides for a wide range of tools, which, if used correctly, may ensure the efficiency of the investigation and effective protection of the merging parties and interested third parties that are not directly connected to the notified merger.

By Mykyta Nota, Partner, and Anton Arkhypov, Counsel, Avellum

This article was originally published in Issue 10.6 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here

Ukraine Knowledge Partner

AVELLUM is a leading Ukrainian full service law firm with a key focus on Finance, Corporate, Dispute Resolution, Tax, and Antitrust.

Our aim is to be the firm of choice for large businesses and financial institutions in respect of their most important and challenging transactions.

We build lasting relationships with our clients and make them feel secure in new uncertain economic and legal realities.

We incorporate the most advanced Western legal techniques and practices into our work. By adding our first-hand knowledge, broad industry experience, and unparalleled level of service we deliver the best results to our clients in their business endeavours. Our partners are taking an active role in every transaction and ensure smooth teamwork.

AVELLUM is recognised as one of the leading law firms in Ukraine by various international and Ukrainian legal editions (Chambers, The Legal500, IFLR1000, The Ukrainian Law Firms, and others).

Firm's website: www.avellum.com


Our Latest Issue