The European Commission’s remedial practice displays important differences in the type of remedies accepted in merger versus antitrust cases. This contribution provides a review of the Commission’s remedies practice over the last 14 years highlighting the differences and discussing inconsistencies.

In particular, it raises the question why predominantly behavioural remedies are chosen in antitrust cases and how this practice is in line with the approach in merger control where the risks to effective competition are viewed as deriving from changes in the structure of the market and where therefore structural remedies are typically considered necessary.