Clifford Chance

On 19 May 2025, the European Commission ("EC") published a proposed agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom regarding cooperation on the application of their competition laws ("UK agreement") to promote coordination in competition matters and enhance the effective enforcement of the parties' respective competition laws.

Two key features of the UK agreement are that: (i) unlike a similar agreement with Switzerland, it does not provide for sharing of information without the consent of the business that provided it; and (ii) on the EU side, the agreement applies not just to the European Commission ("EC") but also to the national competition authorities ("NCAs") of the EU Member States.

I. Context

Following the UK's departure from the EU, there has been a pressing need to establish a framework for cooperation in competition law enforcement. The proposed UK agreement seeks to address this gap by setting out mechanisms for cooperation, information exchange, and coordination between the EC and the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

II. Status Quo

a. Current state of cooperation between the authorities

Efficient enforcement of competition law necessitates cooperation not only among national authorities of EU member states but also between the EU and third-country competition authorities. This cooperation is crucial for antitrust law enforcement. Within the EU, national antitrust authorities are primarily responsible for applying European antitrust law. However, issues arise when multiple national competition authorities conduct parallel proceedings against the same company, as there are no established guidelines for the division of labor within the European network of antitrust authorities. Until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provides clarity, this situation may result in multiple fines in certain cases.

b. Similar agreements to date

To ensure legal certainty, the EU has previously concluded agreements with non-EU countries (categorized into "first" and "second generation" agreements), and the proposed agreement will follow this established framework.

In 1999, the United States of America and the EU entered into an agreement which allows the EC and US competition authorities to participate in each other's proceedings, provided confidentiality safeguards are in place. This cooperation is particularly relevant in merger control, including timing, market definition, and remedies, and does not require an infringement of competition rules by the undertaking in question, thus having a broad scope.

Similar agreements were made with Canada (1999), Japan (2003), and South Korea (2009), with varying degrees of intensity. The 2014 agreement with Switzerland represents a "second generation" development, allowing the exchange of confidential evidence without the companies' consent, subject to strict protection of trade secrets and personal data. However, this second generation agreement has limited legal protection options, as leniency and settlement applications require waivers, but other applications can be submitted without the companies' consent.

III. Key aspects of the new UK agreement

The UK agreement is structured to facilitate effective cooperation in several key areas. First, the UK agreement allows for the exchange of information between the EC and the CMA, subject to confidentiality and data protection safeguards. This is crucial for investigating cross-border anti-competitive practices and mergers that may affect both markets. It also provides for the coordination of enforcement activities, including the possibility of conducting parallel investigations. This aims to ensure that anti-competitive practices are effectively addressed, regardless of where they occur. The UK agreement includes provisions for mutual assistance in the enforcement of competition laws. This can involve sharing expertise, providing technical assistance, and facilitating the collection of evidence. To address any disagreements that may arise in the implementation of the UK agreement, a dispute resolution mechanism is included. This ensures that any issues can be resolved in a timely and efficient manner.

Importantly, this new UK agreement is not a second generation "Swiss style" agreement, as it does not provide for sharing of information without the consent. However, it does envisage that such sharing could become permissible if the respective parties change their laws to allow it. Other key differences to the Swiss agreement are that: (i) the UK agreement includes a detailed dispute resolution mechanism, ensuring that any disagreements can be resolved efficiently and (ii), the UK agreement includes provisions for monitoring the impact of its implementation and making adjustments as needed.

One of the standout features of this new UK agreement is that it applies not just to the EC but also to the NCAs of the EU Member States. This is a significant development as it ensures a more comprehensive and cohesive approach to competition law enforcement across the EU. Whereas the EU's agreement with Switzerland primarily focuses on cooperation between the EC and the Swiss Competition Commission, the UK agreement leverages the local expertise and enforcement capabilities of these authorities by involving NCAs, which can be crucial in addressing anti-competitive practices that have local impacts.

IV. Conclusion and practical implications

The proposed agreement between the EU and the UK on competition law cooperation represents a significant development in the post-Brexit regulatory landscape. By facilitating cooperation and coordination between the EC and the CMA, the agreement aims to ensure effective enforcement of competition laws and protect the integrity of both markets.

For companies operating in both the EU and the UK, the agreement provides a clearer framework for compliance with competition laws. The enhanced cooperation between the EC and the CMA is expected to lead to more consistent enforcement and reduce the risk of conflicting decisions.

Moreover, the UK agreement underscores the commitment of both the EU and the UK to maintaining high standards of competition law enforcement. Businesses should be prepared for rigorous scrutiny of their cross border practices and ensure that they are in compliance with the relevant regulations in both jurisdictions.

Key Takeaways:

• Enhanced Cooperation: The agreement facilitates better cooperation between the EU and UK competition authorities, ensuring more effective enforcement of competition laws. The inclusion of NCAs in the UK agreement represents a more integrated and collaborative approach, potentially setting a new standard for future agreements.
• Consistency in Enforcement: Companies can expect more consistent enforcement of competition laws across both jurisdictions, reducing the risk of conflicting decisions.
• Focus on Compliance: Companies should prioritize compliance with competition laws to avoid potential penalties and ensure smooth operations in both markets.
• Monitoring and Adaptation: The agreement includes provisions for monitoring the impact of its implementation, allowing for adjustments to address any emerging issues.

This agreement signifies the pooling of expertise and close collaboration between the CMA, the EC and the NCAs. It suggests a future in which enforcement of antitrust law is characterized by strong cohesion, efficiency and assertiveness. The commitment to robust competition law enforcement remains a priority for both the EU and the UK, and this agreement is a testament to their ongoing efforts to foster a fair and competitive market environment.

The agreement will enter into force after it has been ratified by both the EU and the UK (including, on the EU side, a decision by the EU Council and consent of the European Parliament). Consequently, there could be changes to the agreed text, but this is unlikely.