Stock Markets February 23, 2026

Five EU States Oppose Easing Merger Rules, Urge Competition-Focused Policy

Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia say loosening merger law is not the route to build European champions

By Leila Farooq
Five EU States Oppose Easing Merger Rules, Urge Competition-Focused Policy

Five EU member states - Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia - have pushed back against proposals to relax EU merger rules. In a note to be discussed at an EU ministers' meeting on Feb. 26, the countries argue that existing competition law already permits the creation of larger European companies where economic evidence supports it and that size alone should not drive merger policy. They also challenge claims that larger telecom operators necessarily deliver stronger investment incentives or more secure supply chains, and urge that resilience concerns be addressed through sectoral or industrial policy rather than changes to competition legislation.

Key Points

  • Five EU member states contend that the current merger framework permits European champions where economic evidence supports such deals.
  • The countries dispute assertions that larger telecom operators necessarily increase investment and caution that concentration could weaken supply-chain resilience.
  • They recommend addressing resilience and supply-chain concerns through sectoral or industrial policy instruments rather than by altering competition legislation.

The governments of Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Latvia have formally warned against changing EU merger law to make regulatory scrutiny of corporate deals easier, according to a note that will be discussed at an EU ministers' meeting on Feb. 26.

Their intervention comes as the European Commission prepares a revision of merger rules that date from 2004 and plans to publish proposals for consultation in April. Sources have indicated the Commission aims in part to encourage pan-European mergers.

In the document, the five countries argue that Europe does not need to dilute its competition regime to create so-called European champions because the current framework already allows mergers where the economic evidence justifies them. They caution against using size as the principal objective of merger policy. As the note puts it: "Size in itself should not be the primary objective."

The note advances a preference for firms that prosper through operational gains rather than special regulatory carve-outs. It says member states should pursue "undertakings that succeed through efficiency, innovation and fair competition instead of exemptions or special treatment." This framing stresses competitiveness based on market performance instead of legislative exceptions.

Responding to arguments, particularly from some European telecom operators, that larger companies would encourage higher investment, the five countries side with regulators who find scant evidence of such an effect. The note states: "The empirical link between higher concentration and stronger investment incentives in telecom markets is at best inconclusive and should be analysed on case-by-case basis."

The signatories also flag concerns about resilience. They say assertions that larger operators would guarantee secure supply chains may have the opposite effect by concentrating dependence on a small number of suppliers and reducing overall resilience.

On that point the countries recommend a different policy route: "If strengthening resilience and secure supply chains is considered to require additional regulatory measures, these should be pursued through sectoral or industrial policy instruments rather than through changes to competition legislation."

As the Commission debates revisions to a framework established in 2004, this formal pushback from five member states highlights continuing divisions within the EU over how best to balance industrial policy goals, national concerns over competitiveness and the integrity of competition law.


Key points

  • Five EU states argue against loosening merger rules, asserting current law can support larger firms where justified.
  • The countries contest claims that larger telecom operators automatically lead to greater investment and warn of risks to supply chain resilience if market concentration increases.
  • Sectors most directly affected include telecoms and industries subject to competition policy and industrial strategy.

Risks and uncertainties

  • Uncertainty over how the Commission's April proposals will address calls to facilitate pan-European mergers could affect M&A activity in telecoms and other regulated sectors.
  • Claims that larger market concentration drives investment remain inconclusive, introducing risk for policymakers who might rely on that assumption when shaping merger policy; telecom markets are specifically highlighted.
  • Efforts to bolster supply-chain resilience via competition-law changes could unintentionally increase dependence on fewer suppliers, presenting a risk to industrial and telecom supply chains.

Risks

  • Potential changes in EU merger policy could create uncertainty in telecom and other regulated sectors if proposals in April change scrutiny standards.
  • Policymakers relying on an unproven link between market concentration and investment may misjudge incentives in telecom markets.
  • Using competition law to address supply-chain resilience risks increasing dependence on a limited set of suppliers, reducing systemic resilience.

More from Stock Markets

Raymond James Lowers Rating on Vertical Aerospace Amid Funding and Talent Concerns Feb 23, 2026 AbbVie to invest $380 million in two new API plants at North Chicago site Feb 23, 2026 Travel Stocks Slide as Report Flags AI Threat to Booking Platforms Feb 23, 2026 Paris Stocks Slip at Close as Consumer Services, Industrials and Tech Weigh on CAC 40 Feb 23, 2026 German shares close lower as broad declines hit tech, construction and retail Feb 23, 2026