1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Karl Stas

Karl Stas

Senior Counsel
Senior Counsel
a3N0YXNAY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20=
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

When faced with complex competition or regulatory issues, clients turn to Karl Stas for no-nonsense, business-focused advice. A senior counsel in the Antitrust and Competition group in Crowell & Moring’s Brussels office, Karl focuses on EU and Belgian competition law (including state aid), public and administrative law, the regulation of network industries, and the digital economy. He regularly advises clients in the telecommunications, media, entertainment, postal and pharmaceutical sectors, among others.

Karl assists international and Belgian clients in complex antitrust and regulatory matters, representing them before both the European Commission and national antitrust and regulatory authorities. In addition to his extensive advisory experience in these areas, Karl is also an experienced litigator, regularly representing clients before Belgian civil and administrative courts at all levels, as well as before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Karl has been noted as a “key figure” for competition law in Belgium by the leading legal journal Legal 500 EMEA.

Career & Education

|

    • Ghent University, B.A., romance studies, 1999
    • Catholic University of Leuven, M.A., european studies, 2001
    • Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), J.D., magna cum laude, 2008
    • University of Michigan Law School, LL.M., 2009
    • Ghent University, B.A., romance studies, 1999
    • Catholic University of Leuven, M.A., european studies, 2001
    • Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), J.D., magna cum laude, 2008
    • University of Michigan Law School, LL.M., 2009

    • Belgium
    • European Court
    • Belgium
    • European Court

    • Dutch
    • English
    • French
    • Italian
    • Dutch
    • English
    • French
    • Italian

Karl's Insights

Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.03.24

The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation One Year On: An Effective Tool or Just More Red Tape?

Just over a year ago, the notification obligations under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) became applicable. Since then, M&A transactions and bids for government contracts above certain thresholds must be notified to the European Commission. Pending the Commission’s review, the transaction cannot be completed, or the contract cannot be awarded. What lessons can be learned from the application of the FSR to date? Has the FSR proved to be an effective tool in leveling the playing field, or has its main effect been to burden companies with red tape, at the risk of discouraging investment in Europe?...

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Represented Telenet before the Market Court in an appeal against a fine imposed by the Belgian telecommunications regulator BIPT, resulting in a reduction of the fine.
  • Represented a betting operator before the Belgian Council of State in an appeal against a decision of the Belgian Gaming Commission regarding the application of a Royal Decree on online betting and gambling, resulting in the partial annulment of the decision.
  • Represented a tobacco manufacturer before the Belgian Council of State in an appeal against a decision by the Ministry of Health regarding a ban on additives facilitating inhalation.
  • Represented Telenet before the Belgian Council of State contesting a Royal Decree reserving mobile spectrum for a new market entrant.
  • Advised a postal operator on the state aid aspects of the grant of €634mn of government support over five years for the provision of services of general economic interest. The European Commission cleared the measure unconditionally.
  • Advised the Belgian print and online media group IPM on its acquisition of Editions de l’Avenir and L’Avenir Hebdo. The transaction was cleared unconditionally by the Belgian Competition Authority.
  • Advised the telecommunications and media group Liberty Global on the creation of a subscription video on demand joint venture with DPG Media. The transaction was cleared unconditionally by the European Commission.
  • Assisted a European federation of authorized car dealers in negotiations with the manufacturer concerning a new distribution model.
  • Successfully represented a Belgian mobile operator in proceedings before the Market Court (a specialized division of the Brussels Court of Appeal) brought by a distributor of mobile signal repeaters who contested a decision by the Belgian telecommunications regulator requiring suppliers of repeaters to obtain the authorization of the licensed mobile operators to use their spectrum.
  • Successfully represented a Belgian mobile operator in proceedings before the Market Court brought by several associations and individuals contesting the award of provisional 5G spectrum licenses to the existing mobile operators.
  • Intervened on behalf of Telenet in litigation before the Liège Court of First Instance concerning the sale of Walloon cable operator VOO to a private equity fund. The court suspended the implementation of the transaction, prompting the buyer to abandon the deal and the seller to organize a new bidding process.
  • Advised the telecommunications and media group Liberty Global on its acquisition of the remaining shares of De Vijver Media, the parent company of the Flemish TV broadcaster SBS and the TV production company Woestijnvis.
  • Represented a Belgian postal operator in proceedings before the Brussels Market Court contesting a decision by the Belgian postal regulator preventing the client from raising stamp prices.
  • Represented Belgian cable operators in proceedings before the Brussels Court of Appeal contesting network access regulation.
  • Represented a Belgian electricity producer in proceedings before the Belgian Constitutional Court contesting a nuclear windfall tax.
  • Represented a Belgian electricity producer and supplier in litigation with the transmission network operator in relation to the provision of reserve capacity.
  • Represented sports betting companies before the Belgian Competition Authority in an abuse of dominance claim against the Belgian National Lottery. This resulted in the imposition of a fine on the National Lottery.
  • Represented a diamond mining, trading, and retail group in defense against a claim of abuse of dominance by a Belgian diamond trader.
  • Represented a Belgian mobile operator in a pioneering antitrust damages action against a competitor.
  • Advised a Belgian mobile operator on infrastructure sharing and MVNO agreements.
  • Represented a Belgian mobile operator in proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the CJEU contesting the imposition of license fees for the use of radio spectrum.
  • Advised a Belgian company active in the banking and payment services industry in relation to third-party access to accounts under the second EU Payment Services Directive.
  • Represented a Fortune 500 company in merger proceedings before the European Commission relating to a transaction in the OTC medicines markets.
  • Intervened on behalf of a satellite communications operator in proceedings brought by a competitor before the Brussels Market Court contesting the client’s right to operate ground stations on the Belgian territory.
  • Advised a manufacturer and supplier of medical devices on incentives to health care professionals as well as on public procurement issues.
  • Assisted an international sports betting group in securing a license in Belgium.
  • Carried out an antitrust compliance audit at a Belgian company active in the rail freight sector.
  • Advised a European trade association on EU energy efficiency and ecodesign regulation.

Karl's Insights

Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.03.24

The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation One Year On: An Effective Tool or Just More Red Tape?

Just over a year ago, the notification obligations under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) became applicable. Since then, M&A transactions and bids for government contracts above certain thresholds must be notified to the European Commission. Pending the Commission’s review, the transaction cannot be completed, or the contract cannot be awarded. What lessons can be learned from the application of the FSR to date? Has the FSR proved to be an effective tool in leveling the playing field, or has its main effect been to burden companies with red tape, at the risk of discouraging investment in Europe?...

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.03.24

The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation One Year On: An Effective Tool or Just More Red Tape?

Client Alert | 15 min read | 10.15.24

The European Commission’s Draft Guidelines on Exclusionary Abuses: Towards Stricter Enforcement?

Webinar | 09.12.24

How to Get the Deal Through: The Increasingly Complex Regulatory Landscape for M&A Transactions

Speaking Engagement | 09.12.24

"How to Get the Deal Through: The Increasingly Complex Regulatory Landscape for M&A Transactions," C
|

View All Insights

Practices

Karl's Insights

Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.03.24

The EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation One Year On: An Effective Tool or Just More Red Tape?

Just over a year ago, the notification obligations under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) became applicable. Since then, M&A transactions and bids for government contracts above certain thresholds must be notified to the European Commission. Pending the Commission’s review, the transaction cannot be completed, or the contract cannot be awarded. What lessons can be learned from the application of the FSR to date? Has the FSR proved to be an effective tool in leveling the playing field, or has its main effect been to burden companies with red tape, at the risk of discouraging investment in Europe?...

View All Insights