Five EU states publicly oppose loosening merger rules ahead of ministerial debate

Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia issued a joint document on February 23, 2026, urging EU ministers not to weaken merger control rules and scheduling the paper for discussion at an EU ministerial meeting on February 26. The five governments warned that changes aimed at creating larger European champions are unnecessary and risk politicizing enforcement of competition law.

In the document, which was obtained by news outlets and cited by TV Delmarva, the group argued that “size in itself should not be the primary objective” and advocated for “undertakings that succeed through efficiency, innovation and fair competition instead of exemptions or special treatment.” Their public push comes as the European Commission prepares a rule revision process that member states and business lobbies view as a potential opportunity to loosen scrutiny of cross-border consolidations.

The Commission, which enforces the European Merger Regulation that has been in place since 2004, is reported to be preparing draft proposals to promote cross-border European mergers and plans to release those drafts for public comment in April. Officials framed the review as an effort to help European firms compete against deep-pocketed non-EU rivals. Businesses seeking fewer hurdles to consolidation have argued they need greater freedom to merge to achieve scale and fight competition from outside the bloc, though no specific companies were named in the materials obtained by news outlets.

Legal scholars and some competition experts have pushed back against proposals that would shift merger appeals into political bodies. An analysis in Awards Concurrences warned that proposals to introduce a right of appeal to the Council “would upend the impartiality and objectivity of the EC’s merger enforcement, undermining the transparent and consistent legal framework that has characterised decision‑making for 30 years.” The piece noted that the Council is a political body composed of national governments and EU leaders, while the Commission is the institution that proposes and enforces competition legislation.

Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has previously defended the current framework, saying the EUMR has “served us well.” Academic debate has also tended to lean against loosening controls: an IGM Forum panel cited by commentators found a majority of economists disagreed with relaxing merger control to create so-called European champions.

The dispute revives familiar tensions in EU industrial policy. Awards Concurrences recalled the 2014 episode when the French government resisted a proposed sale of Alstom’s gas turbine business to General Electric, illustrating how national political interests can clash with market-based enforcement. Critics of a more politicized system warn that allowing political appeals or special exemptions could produce inconsistent outcomes and undermine legal certainty for firms and investors.

Practical fallout from the current dispute will hinge on the ministerial debate scheduled for February 26 and the Commission’s April draft. If Brussels maintains strict merger review, consolidation aimed at countering global competitors could remain difficult for European firms. If rules are relaxed, proponents say deal activity may increase, but scholars caution about the risk of ad hoc political interventions. Journalists and market watchers are seeking the full joint document, the Commission’s draft proposals, and responses from national capitals and industry groups to assess the next steps for EU competition policy.