EU foreign investment notifications rose sharply in 2025, but a quick close at the EU cooperation stage is not a timetable for an entire acquisition. Deal teams need to map both the EU and national processes.
Observed fact: EU notifications climbed sharply
The European Commission reported on 14 October that EU Member States notified 667 foreign investments to its cooperation mechanism in 2025, compared with 477 in 2024, a rise of 40 per cent. Of the 2025 notifications, 88 per cent were closed within 15 days at that cooperation stage. The figures describe cases notified to the Commission, not every proposed foreign investment in the EU and not the full duration of a national screening decision. Treating the 15-day statistic as a universal acquisition timetable would give deal teams a false sense of certainty. [1]
Manufacturing accounted for 27 per cent of 2025 notifications, followed by information and communication technologies at 19 per cent and financial activities at 17 per cent. The Commission said 12 per cent of notified investments required an in-depth security risk assessment, with manufacturing making up 53 per cent of those deeper cases. It issued opinions in fewer than 2 per cent of cases. Those proportions show where scrutiny was concentrated in the reported population; they do not say that a transaction in any one sector will be cleared, delayed or rejected. [1]
Observed fact: the rules and the market move on different calendars
The Commission says that all Member States have had foreign direct investment screening frameworks since late 2025. Its revised Foreign Investment Screening Regulation was adopted in June 2026 and is scheduled to apply from 17 January 2028. The Commission describes a wider scope for indirect investments and EU-based investors ultimately controlled from outside the Union, as well as a minimum range of sensitive sectors. These are important design changes, but they should not be presented as though the 2028 framework already governs every filing made today. [1] [2]
Market volume is a separate measure. OECD data published in April show that completed cross-border merger and acquisition deal values rose 8 per cent in 2025 while the number of concluded deals fell 3 per cent. In the first quarter of 2026, values and deal counts were about 2 per cent and 13 per cent lower, respectively, than in the final quarter of 2025. These are global deal measures; the Commission's 667 figure is a count of EU cooperation notifications. Neither series can be divided by the other to produce a European approval or completion rate. [3]
Observed fact: investment policy has competing objectives
The revised EU framework aims to identify security and public-order risks while maintaining openness to foreign investment. Its stated minimum screening scope includes dual-use items, critical technologies, critical raw materials, financial services, transport, energy and electoral infrastructure. The Commission also describes common procedural standards and a filter intended to send the higher-risk cases through EU cooperation. An investor therefore needs to understand the target's actual activities and control chain, rather than rely only on its broad industry label or the location of the immediate buyer. [2]
The wider economic question is how screening interacts with investment and integration. In March, the IMF's European Department director described costly cross-border investment and fragmented capital markets as barriers to European firms scaling. He also cautioned that simply relaxing merger rules could weaken competition without solving those barriers. These remarks are economic analysis, not an interpretation of the screening law. Together with the Commission's security rationale, they illustrate why a proposed transaction can face legitimate review even where policymakers want more investment overall. [4] [2]
Oakhampton inference: run two clocks before fixing a closing date
For a cross-border acquisition, a practical first step is to identify the ultimate controller, target assets, relevant Member States and activities that could fall within sensitive categories. The deal team can then distinguish any national notification and decision timetable from the EU cooperation window, recording which authority controls each milestone. That is an execution inference from the reported mechanism and revised scope, not a claim that every deal requires a filing. The transaction timetable should be built from jurisdiction-specific advice and the actual facts of the proposed control change. [1] [2]
A second step is to align conditions precedent, information requests and commercial long-stop dates with that map. An 88 per cent fast-close statistic at the EU cooperation stage may inform planning, but it cannot replace a national process assessment or a decision on whether other approvals apply. Buyers and sellers should preserve room for questions about beneficial ownership, business activities and security-sensitive customers or assets. Clear evidence early in a process may reduce avoidable rework; the public figures do not establish how much time any particular deal will save. [1] [2]
Remaining uncertainty: case-level outcomes are not in the headline
The Commission's release gives aggregate notifications, sector shares and EU cooperation outcomes, but it does not provide a prediction for a specific national review. The OECD's global completed-deal series likewise cannot reveal which proposed EU transactions were withdrawn, modified or approved after screening. A buyer considering a target should verify the current national rules, filing thresholds, control structure and any parallel competition or sector permissions before treating a timetable as firm. The scheduled 2028 application date also means present and future processes should be labelled separately. [1] [2] [3]
The useful signal from the latest report is operational: more transactions entered the EU cooperation mechanism, while a minority required deeper assessment. That supports earlier screening diligence and clearer milestone ownership, not a blanket expectation of intervention or a promise of quick clearance. The next annual report may show whether the 2025 jump persists and how the sector mix changes. Until then, the public data support preparation and scenario planning, while the actual transaction documents and responsible national authorities determine a deal's path. [1]
Sources
- Screening of foreign direct investment continues to advance EU security and public orderEuropean Commission
- EU strengthens its foreign investment screening frameworkEuropean Commission
- FDI in Figures, April 2026Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- Reforming under pressure: Europe's agenda for robust growth and higher productivityInternational Monetary Fund