Mergers notified to the European Commission since 1990, recorded in 10 parts and 65 variables: the deal, the parties, the markets, the theories of harm, the evidence and economics, the remedies, and what the courts did afterwards. The values are read from the Commission's decision and its case register.
Every value keeps its paragraph.
Access is by invitation during the test period.
What comes out: three of the ten parts, across all decisions
Real records from the database, as read from the decisions. Sample taken on 08/10/2026.
The coding scheme
A Commission decision follows a fixed logic: the deal, the markets, the theories of harm tested on those markets, the arguments in return, the remedies. We record it the same way, variable by variable. Most variables are chosen from a fixed list, 205 named values in all, so two decisions that say the same thing in different words end up with the same value, and a question about the case law can be answered by counting.
Each part lists its variables. Where a variable is chosen from a fixed list, the whole list is shown, with the number of values next to the name. Everything else is a number, a yes or no, a name, or a short text in the Commission's words. Every recorded value keeps the paragraph of the decision it was taken from. A notification without a published decision holds the facts from the Commission's register only.
What kind of concentration it is, and why the parties said they were doing it.
Yes or no, where the deal is a joint venture.
Yes or no, where the decision flags it.
Recorded four times over: the main reason the parties gave, their further reasons, how the Commission itself characterised the deal, and what the deal structure implies.
Who was involved, in what role, and what kind of company each one is.
Where the party is headquartered or incorporated.
NACE codes, attributed to the party the activity belongs to where the decision says so.
Worldwide and in the EEA, as a figure or a range, where the public version gives it.
Why the case was the Commission's to decide, and who else looked at it.
Whether the Article 1(2) thresholds are met, whether the alternative Article 1(3) thresholds are met, and the two-thirds rule.
For each: whether it was requested, how it ended, and the Member States involved.
Other jurisdictions are recorded by name.
Yes or no, for cases since the regulation applies.
The steps of the case as the decision recounts them, each with its date.
Deadlines, the phase of a case under review, extensions and the links between cases come straight from the Commission's register. They are kept apart from what is read out of the decision text.
Every product and geographic market the decision considers is its own record. A large decision has dozens.
In the Commission's own wording.
With the country or region where there is one.
The precedent relied on, the segmentation considered, and why the boundary could be left open.
Yes or no.
Before and after the deal, as the figure or range the decision gives.
HHI before, after and the change, where the decision publishes them.
How many significant competitors before and after, who they are by name, and how many are close competitors.
Whether the Commission actually analysed competition on this market.
Theories of harm the Commission raised on this market at the screening stage and did not carry into the full assessment, each with the reason.
On this market, in a sentence or two.
Every way the Commission tested whether the deal could harm competition, attached to the market it concerns.
A theory that fits none of these gets its own name instead of being forced into one.
The difference between a theory the Commission ran and a problem the Commission found.
Yes or no: whether it came from complainants or market participants.
A quotation stating the theory, with its paragraphs.
What the parties argued in return, taken apart into the conditions each argument has to meet.
Each claimed efficiency by name, for example procurement synergies.
Whether the Commission assessed each one.
The same three criteria, but two different things in law, so they are recorded apart.
With the alternative purchaser by name where the decision gives one.
Which economic techniques appear in the decision, what each one measured, and on which market.
The Commission's surveys and the parties' surveys are kept apart on purpose.
The metric, the value or range, and the unit.
Yes or no: whether the Commission relied on the parties' own documents.
Whether reports commissioned by the parties are cited, and the firms by name.
By name, where the decision names them.
Each commitment is its own record, tied to the markets it is meant to fix.
Whether one was run, and whether it led to revised commitments.
Which of the case's markets this commitment answers.
Plus what is divested and its geographic scope.
The pricing term, the duration, and who the commitment benefits.
Yes or no for each.
What the EU courts made of the decision afterwards.
Judgments and orders of the General Court and the Court of Justice, linked to the decision they review, with their outcome.
One case number can cover several decisions. A ruling counts against a decision only when it is about that decision, and not when it concerns costs, interim measures or access to documents.
Attached to the case and searchable, but shown as opinions. They decide nothing and are never counted as an outcome.
An empty field means the decision does not say. A missing value is never estimated.
Built on the data
Each returns findings with their case numbers and paragraphs. You copy what you need into your own work. The memo and the conclusion stay yours.
Describe a deal
You describe a transaction in a few sentences. It is read into the same variables as the decisions, and decided cases are ranked by how close their markets are to yours.
Analyst
It narrows to the cases matching the coded variables, then searches the decision text within that set. Under every answer is the list of cases it was built on.
MCP
The coded decisions can also be reached over MCP, the open standard for connecting an AI assistant to a source. Every passage comes back with its case number and paragraph.
Also in the tool: the case list with filters on the substance, cases under review with the Commission's deadlines, court review, and projects that keep a question, your notes and a set of cases together.
Two people, one from each side of the problem.
Competition law
Associate professor of competition law and regulation at Utrecht University School of Law, where he co-directs the LLM Law & Economics and teaches EU competition law. Before returning to academia in 2018 he spent five years in private practice, advising on EU competition law, sector regulation and compliance. He holds a PhD from Tilburg Law School and was a Fulbright scholar.
Here he decides what is coded and how: the variables, their values and the distinctions between them. He checks the readings against the decisions.
Legal tech builder
Started as a litigator at Freshfields, taught himself to code, and has spent the last ten years building tools that make legal work clearer and faster. Founder of Patroon, the legal design and tech studio, and co-founder of Mino, a community of lawyers who build AI tools.
Here he builds the tool: the pipeline that reads the decisions, the search across them and the Analyst.
A description you type is read once and not stored, unless you save it as a project. To read it, the text is sent to a language model provider, which may process it outside the EU. So describe the deal without names: the products, the countries and the structure are what the search uses. During the test period, do not paste client-confidential material.
Mergers notified to the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation, from 1990 to today: more than 10,300 cases in the Commission's register. More than 9,900 of them have a published decision that has been read and coded, with more than 45,000 markets and 25,000 theories of harm. The others have no published decision, or one that could not be read. The Cases page in the app shows the status of every case.
Not yet. Today it covers merger control only: cases notified to the European Commission under the EU Merger Regulation. The Commission's cartel and abuse of dominance decisions are coming soon. Decisions of national competition authorities are not in it.
From the European Commission's public case register and the decisions published there. We add no commentary of our own. Facts taken from the register, such as dates, the phase and the deadlines, are stored and labelled apart from values read from the decision text.
The Commission's case register is checked daily. A new decision is picked up and read shortly after the Commission publishes it, and cases still under review are listed with the Commission's provisional deadline.
A language model reads each decision into the scheme, part by part. Automatic checks flag a reading that looks incomplete, and a flag is a prompt for a person to look at the case. The scheme itself, the variables and the values they can take, is set by a competition lawyer, who checks readings against the decisions.
You check it. Every claim points to the paragraph of the decision it came from, and that paragraph opens next to the answer. An answer can be wrong, so the reference is the part to rely on, not the summary.
No. The record is the product: every case coded into the same variables, each value with its paragraph. The Analyst does answer a question in words, but it builds the answer from the coded data and lists the cases it used underneath.
No. It gives findings with their references: cases, tables and passages. You copy what you need into your own work and draw the conclusion yourself.
That is being tested. The coded decisions can be reached over MCP, the open standard for connecting an AI assistant to a source. It is not open to everyone yet. Tell us which assistant you use when you ask for access.
No. It is a research tool. It does not give legal advice and it is not a substitute for reading the decision or for professional judgement.
Access is by invitation during the test period. Fill in the request form and tell us briefly what you work on.
Two people. Jasper Sluijs, associate professor of competition law and regulation at Utrecht University, decides what is coded and how. Maurits Fornier, a former litigator who builds legal tools, builds the pipeline and the search. Seek is not affiliated with the European Commission.
It is a play on SIEC, the significant impediment to effective competition: the test a merger is assessed against under the EU Merger Regulation. It is also what you do here: seek the case, the market or the paragraph you need.
Ask for access and look one up. Access is by invitation during the test period.