Week Ahead (9 March)

W/C Monday, 9 March – Greens retain Baden-Wurttemberg in setback for Merz coalition as Germany’s ‘’super election year’’ gets underway; AfD makes further gains 

Germany’s “super election year” opened on Sunday with a narrow but politically significant result in Baden-Württemberg, where the Greens finished first ahead of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU, defying conservative hopes of recapturing one of the country’s most economically important states. Preliminary results put the Greens on 30.2–30.4%, just ahead of the CDU on 29.7%, with the AfD in third on roughly 18.6–18.8%. The SPD, Merz’s federal coalition partner, slumped to around 5.5–5.6%, its worst result in a federal or state election in postwar German history, while the business-friendly liberal FDP failed to clear the 5% threshold and is set to drop out of the state parliament. 

The outcome in Baden-Württemberg, Germany’s third-largest state by population and a core industrial hub home to companies such as Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Bosch, is closely watched well beyond the regional level. The state remains a key symbol of Germany’s export-oriented manufacturing model, but one now under strain from the automotive transition, restructuring pressures and broader competitiveness concerns. Those economic anxieties shaped the campaign and can also explain why the AfD was able to post one of its strongest results in the western part of the country, nearly doubling its support compared with the previous election. 

For Merz, the result is not catastrophic, but it is still a clear disappointment. The CDU did improve on its 2021 result yet fell short of reclaiming first place in a state the party once dominated and where it had hoped the departure of the long-serving Green premier Wilfried Kretschmann would open the door to a comeback. 

At the same time, the outcome is more damaging for the SPD than for the CDU. The party’s historically poor showing will likely reinforce concerns within the SPD that participation in Merz’s CDU-led coalition is further eroding its profile and alienating parts of its remaining electorate. The FDP’s apparent failure to enter the Landtag is also symbolically important, given the party’s long-standing presence in Baden-Württemberg politics. 

Coalition arithmetic suggests that the most likely outcome is a renewed Green-CDU coalition, which has governed the state since 2016. That would preserve a degree of continuity in Stuttgart but also reflects a broader reality: mainstream parties remain capable of containing the AfD in government formation terms, yet the far right continues to expand electorally by tapping into economic discontent, particularly in manufacturing-heavy regions under transition pressure. 

Beyond the immediate state outcome, the election forms the opening chapter of what German commentators have labelled a “super election year”. Four additional state contests will follow in 2026, in Rhineland-Palatinate later in March, and later in the year in Saxony-Anhalt, Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. These votes are expected to shape the political environment in which Merz’s government attempts to advance its reform agenda.  

Therefore, the Baden-Württemberg result should be read as an early warning sign for Merz. The CDU remains competitive, but not dominant; the SPD looks increasingly fragile; the Greens have shown they can still win state elections when fronted by a strong centrist candidate; and the AfD continues to broaden its appeal beyond its eastern strongholds. 

W/C Monday, 9 March – Commission likely to issue merger decision in Leonardo’s acquisition of Iveco Defence Vehicles, following FSR clearance 

The European Commission will likely issue its Phase 1 decision in the acquisition of Iveco Defence Vehicles by Leonardo in the coming days. At this stage, the case remains on track for a straightforward Phase I clearance, with no public indications that the Commission is considering opening an in-depth Phase II investigation. 

The transaction, valued at approximately €1.7 billion, would see Leonardo acquire full control of Iveco Defence Vehicles, significantly expanding its position in land defence systems, including armoured vehicles, tactical trucks and military logistics platforms. The acquisition forms part of Leonardo’s broader industrial strategy aimed at scaling European defence manufacturing capacity and reinforcing supply chains across EU and NATO markets. 

The merger review follows the Commission’s recent clearance of the deal under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) on 24 February, which concluded that the transaction did not raise concerns regarding distortive foreign subsidies despite Leonardo’s global operations and exposure to non-EU financial contributions. That approval removed one of the key regulatory hurdles for the deal and allowed the merger review to proceed as the final major EU-level clearance. 

The acquisition also sits within a wider restructuring of Iveco Group. Under a parallel process, Tata Motors has agreed to acquire Iveco’s non-defence commercial vehicle business through a separate transaction, which is conditional on the carve-out and sale of the defence arm to Leonardo. Politically, the case has unfolded in a more permissive environment for defence-sector consolidation in Europe, as policymakers increasingly view industrial scale as a prerequisite for strengthening the EU’s defence industrial base.  

Although the formal deadline under the EU Merger Regulation currently is set for 16 March, a decision is likely this week, paving the way for the completion of the transaction and marking another example of Brussels accommodating consolidation in strategically sensitive sectors. 

Wednesday, 11 March – General Court to hear Nvidia’s challenge to Commission’s acceptance of Article 22 referral in Run:ai merger case 

On Wednesday, the General Court of the EU, the bloc's lower court, is set to hear Nvidia v European Commission (T-15/25), a closely watched case concerning the Commission’s use of referral powers under the EU Merger Regulation to examine acquisitions involving emerging technology firms. 

The dispute stems from the Commission’s decision to accept a referral request from Italy’s competition authority, the Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), asking Brussels to review Nvidia’s acquisition of Israeli AI orchestration startup Run:ai. The transaction did not meet the turnover thresholds required for review under either EU or national merger control regimes but was nevertheless brought under EU scrutiny through the referral mechanism of Article 22 of the Merger Regulation. 

Nvidia argues that the Commission unlawfully accepted the referral because the Italian authority relied on broadly defined “call-in” powers to request EU intervention in a deal falling below formal jurisdictional thresholds. According to the company, the decision breached principles of legal certainty, proportionality and institutional balance by allowing regulators to review transactions ex post that companies reasonably expected would fall outside the scope of merger control. 

The case takes place against the backdrop of the landmark judgement of the CJEU in Illumina v European Commission (C‑611/22 P and C‑625/22 P) in September 2024, which significantly curtailed the Commission’s ability to encourage or accept Article 22 referrals for transactions lacking a clear EU dimension. That ruling forced Brussels to recalibrate its strategy for addressing so-called “killer acquisitions” in sectors characterised by rapid innovation and low current revenues but potentially large future competitive impact. 

Although the Commission ultimately cleared the Nvidia–Run:ai transaction in December 2024, the judicial challenge focuses on the legality of the referral decision itself rather than the substantive merger outcome. The judgement in T-15/25 is therefore expected to clarify how far national competition authorities can rely on discretionary call-in powers to trigger EU-level merger scrutiny following the Illumina-Grail ruling.  

Thursday, 12 March – CJEU Advocate General opinion expected in Credit Agricole appeal over antitrust ruling 

On Thursday, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is expected to receive the Advocate General’s opinion in the appeal brought by Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank against the European Commission in Crédit Agricole v European Commission (C‑191/24 P). 

The non-binding opinion will be delivered by Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou and relates to the banks’ challenge to the General Court’s December 2023 judgement in Crédit Agricole v European Commission (T‑113/17). Despite being advisory in nature, Advocate General opinions are often influential in shaping the Court’s reasoning, with the final ruling frequently following the same direction. 

The appeal concerns findings that the banks participated in anticompetitive information exchanges, as well as the subsequent calculation of fines imposed by the Commission. Crédit Agricole argues that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the Competition Commissioner had not breached the obligation of subjective impartiality and alleges that the court distorted evidence regarding the alleged information exchanges. 

The appellants also contest the General Court’s assessment of whether the conduct formed part of a single and continuous infringement and challenge the way the court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction when reviewing the amount of the penalty. 

Although the Advocate General’s opinion will not resolve the dispute, it will provide the first indication of how the Court may approach the banks’ arguments ahead of the final judgement expected later this year.