NL EN FR
/ Journal / Competition Flashback

Competition Flashback Q2 2025 – EU and Dutch competition law developments

Bas Braeken & Jade Versteeg & Timo Hieselaar & Demi van den Berg & Joost van Belois
09 Jul 2025

This is the Competition Flashback Q2 2025 by bureau Brandeis, featuring a selection of the key EU and Dutch competition law developments of the past quarter (see the original version here).

Would you like to receive Competition Flashback by email in the future? You can subscribe to our mailing list here.

 

Overview Q2 2025

Merger control and FDI

Damages claims for competition law infringements

Cartels and vertical restraints

Digital markets

Supervision and enforcement

Regulated markets

ACM approves DPG/RTL merger under strict conditions

Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 27 June 2025 (summary)

On 27 June 2025, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM”) conditionally approved the acquisition of RTL Nederland (“RTL”) by DPG Media (“DPG”). The ACM investigated the effects of the proposed concentration between DPG and RTL for the scope, quality and pluralism of general news content in the Netherlands (see also CF Q2 2024 for the announcement of the second-phase investigation). In its assessment, the ACM considered media plurality as a qualitative aspect, whereby a deterioration in news quality also results in a decrease in the diversity of opinions and perspectives in the media. The proposed merger would create a media company that operates across the entire spectrum of the Dutch media landscape, offering a broad range of media services through five linear and three digital TV channels, video streaming, radio, national and regional newspapers, weekly and monthly magazines, online news, and various other online services.

Regarding the online news market, the ACM considers that the acquisition of RTL by DPG – both significant players in that market – would significantly reduce competitive pressure in the market. The ACM considers it plausible that the proposed concentration could lead to a deterioration of news quality, media plurality and competition between editors, including through declining investments, political or commercial influence and reduced incentives to compete on journalistic quality.

DPG has offered a comprehensive package of commitments to address the ACM’s concerns, including the indefinite continued free provision of ‘RTL Nieuws’ and NU.nl (DPG will be able to request the ACM to lift or modify the measure in ‘the future’), strengthening editorial statutes and establishing independent foundations to monitor editorial independence. Also, the statutory rights of the Democracy & Media Foundation will be expanded, DPG commits to a Charter guaranteeing pluralism and independence, and RTL Nederland will be placed under Dutch supervision by the Dutch Media Authority within five years. The implementation of these measures will be closely monitored through reports to both the involved foundations and the ACM.

The ACM has also examined whether DPG and RTL could, post-merger, use their broad media channels to exclude competitors in the advertising market through bundled discounts, but considers this unlikely. The ACM further finds it improbable that the merger will result in lower pay or worsened conditions for (freelance) journalists, given the parties’ limited market share and the influence of trade unions. Finally, the ACM concludes that although the parties’ negotiating position towards news agencies such as ANP will become slightly stronger, this will not lead negatively impact the overall news supply.

 

back to top

Licence required for acquisition of Unox by Zwanenberg

Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 5 June 2025

On 6 June 2025, the ACM announced its intention to conduct further investigation into the proposed acquisition of the iconic Dutch brand Unox and the Belgian brand Zwan by Zwanenberg Benelux. With this acquisition, Unox would, after nearly a century, be separated from its current parent company, Unilever. Zwanenberg produces and sells meat preserves (including smoked sausages) and ambient wet soups, particularly private-label products sold under supermarket house brands, as well as products under its own brands, such as Kips and Huls. The ACM is concerned that the acquisition of Unox could significantly strengthen Zwanenberg’s bargaining power vis-à-vis supermarkets. Unox is a well-established brand with loyal customers, who might switch to another supermarket to purchase it. In its further investigation, the ACM will examine the potential risks to competition in the national markets for canned-meat products (including cooking sausages, smoked sausages and other canned meat) and ambient wet soups.

back to top

BTI publishes Annual Report 2024

Ministry of Economic Affairs (BTI), publication of 12 May 2025

On 12 May 2025, the Minister of Economic Affairs published the 2024 Annual Report of the Bureau for Investment Screening (“BTI” and “Annual Report”). The Annual Report provides insight into the impact of the Investment, Mergers and Acquisitions Security Screening Act (in Dutch: Wet Vifo, “Vifo Act”) and other sector-specific legislation on investment practices in the Netherlands and highlights several key developments.

One important development is the proposed expansion of the scope of the Vifo Act. The relevant proposal involves an amendment to the Decree on the Scope of Sensitive Technologies, which regulates which (highly) sensitive technologies fall within the scope of the Vifo Act. The proposal seeks to add biotechnology, artificial intelligence, advanced materials and nanotechnology, sensor and navigation technology and nuclear technology with medical use to the Decree (see also our Flash Forward 2025).  The public consultation for the proposed amendment closed on 31 January 2025.

The Annual Report also covers the number of screenings, their background, processing times, and transaction values.  In 2024, the BTI conducted a total of 83 screenings, and 69 new notifications were submitted. By comparison, in 2023, there were 34 screenings and 46 notifications (after the Vifo Act came into force on 1 June 2023). The majority of screenings were carried out under the Vifo Act (61). Screenings were also conducted under the Offshore Wind Energy Act (7), the Electricity Act 1998 (1) and the Telecommunications Act (1). Thirteen screenings were still ongoing at the end of 2024. In 48 cases the BTI gave unconditional approval. In four cases, the screening resulted in a review decision. Three cases were approved subject to conditions, while in one case the transaction was prohibited in full. The BTI reports that all screenings were completed within the statutory deadlines. In a quarter of cases, screenings were completed within 35 days, and half of all cases were concluded between 35 and 72 days. In 2024, the deadline was extended by up to six months on ten occasions.

back to top

ACM approves FincoEnergies’ acquisition of Klaas de Boer subject to conditions

Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 3 April 2025

The ACM has conditionally approved FincoEnergies’ acquisition of oil trading company Klaas de Boer. Both companies are active in the supply of marine fuels and lubricants to business customers at various Dutch ports — a service commonly referred to as bunkering. Following its Phase I investigation, the ACM identified potential competition concerns regarding the supply of marine fuels — particularly gasoil — to port-related customers such as fishing companies, towage services, ferry operators, and offshore service providers. These concerns related specifically to the ports of Harlingen, Lauwersoog, Eemshaven-Delfzijl, IJmuiden and Den Helder (see also CF Q2 2024). The ACM concluded that, post-merger, few if any viable alternatives would remain for customers in these ports, raising the risk of price increases. As a result, the ACM determined that a merger license was required.

To address these competition concerns, the parties proposed a package of remedies during the Phase II investigation. They agreed to divest several business units to the GMB Group, which includes competing bunker fuel supplier Slurink. The divestment includes five bunker vessels, a fuel storage terminal in Harlingen, and Klaas de Boer’s port-related customer portfolio. GMB will continue supplying marine fuels under the Klaas de Boer brand in the ports of Harlingen, Lauwersoog, Eemshaven-Delfzijl, and Den Helder. For IJmuiden, the ACM concluded — following further market assessment — that no significant adverse effects were likely to occur after all. With these commitments in place, the ACM decided to approve the acquisition.

back to top

Merger highlights European Commission

Universal Music Group/Downtown

The European Commission (“Commission”) has recently accepted a referral request from the ACM concerning the acquisition of Downtown by Universal Music Group. On 24 February 2025, the parties notified the proposed acquisition to the ACM. Shortly thereafter, the ACM received complaints from market participants regarding the proposed acquisition. As the ACM is concerned about the potential effects of the acquisition on both the Dutch and European markets for music services, it decided to refer the case to the Commission under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation.

More specifically, the ACM fears that the acquisition could lead to higher prices for artists, a reduced supply of music, and less innovation in services for labels and artists. These concerns are shared by the Austrian competition authority (“AFCA”), which therefore joined ACM’s referral request. The Commission will now conduct an investigation into the proposed acquisition.

Mars/Kellanova

On 25 June 2025, the Commission announced a second-phase investigation into the acquisition of Kellanova by Mars. Both undertakings have strong positions in different food product markets. The Commission has preliminary concerns that the merger will lead to higher prices for consumers due to the increased negotiation power Mars obtains through this acquisition vis-à-vis retailers. Both Mars and Kellanova offer products that consumers regard as essential, which may pressure retailers into accepting higher prices to avoid losing customers by no longer stocking these items. The Commission has until the end of October 2025 to complete its further investigation into the acquisition.

UniCredit/Banco BPM

On 19 June 2025, the Commission conditionally approved the acquisition of Banco BPM (“BPM”) by UniCredit. UniCredit and BPM offer overlapping corporate and retail banking services in the Italian market. At local level, the proposed transaction would raise competition concerns in the markets for deposits and loans for both retail consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) banking services, as BPM and UniCredits activities overlap significantly in this market. The Commission found no competition concerns on broader, regional level. Finally, the transaction does not raise concerns regarding possible risks of coordination in the Italian banking market, due to (i) the market’s fragmented and competitive nature; (ii) low transparency in consumer pricing; and (iii) limited monitoring by competitors of their respective market behaviour both at the regional and provincial level.

UniCredit has committed to divest 209 physical branches in local markets where a problematic overlap with BPM’s operations exists. According to the Commission, this commitment will limit the combined market share of UniCredit and BPM at the local level, thereby eliminating the competition concerns in the market for deposits and loans for both retail consumers and SMEs in Italy.

Liberty Media/Dorna

On 23 June 2025, the Commission unconditionally approved the acquisition of Dorna Sports (“Dorna”) by Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media”) following a second-phase investigation. Liberty Media owns, among others, the Formula One Group, which holds the commercial rights to Formula 1. Dorna holds, among other things, the commercial rights to MotoGP. The Commission assessed whether the transaction would restrict competition in the licensing of broadcasting rights for sports content.

In its investigation, the Commission initially considered the market for all sports content but identified two criteria that could potentially lead to a narrower market definition. First, broadcasters often distinguish between regular sports broadcasts (such as annual soccer leagues) and irregular sports broadcasts (such as the Olympics). Second, a number of sports – depending on the Member State – are significantly more popular than others, leading to substantially higher licensing costs for those sports.

This could result in a distinction between premium and non-premium sports. Formula 1 and MotoGP would be part of the regular, non-premium sports market. The Commission left the precise market definition open and examined the impact of the acquisition in each Member State on the narrowest possible market (national regular, non-premium markets). The Commission found Liberty Media and Dorna not to be close competitors in any of these markets. Moreover, even after the acquisition, broadcasters would continue to have access to licensing opportunities for various other sports that attract audiences of at least comparable size. The Commission therefore concluded that the acquisition did not raise competition concerns.

Safran/Collins Aerospace

The Commission has conditionally approved the acquisition of part of Collins Aerospace’s aerospace and aviation actuation business by Safran. Prior to the acquisition, both companies were the leading suppliers of trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator systems (systems that adjust the tailplane to keep the aircraft stable, “THSA systems”). The acquisition, as initially notified, would have significantly reduced competition in the market for THSA systems. To remedy this, Safran offered to divest all of its North American THSA activities. The Commission also assessed whether the transaction would have an impact in other related markets but found no competition concerns there.

The Commission concluded that, subject to full compliance with the commitments made, the acquisition would no longer raise competition concerns. An independent trustee will monitor compliance with the commitments. At the end of 2024, Safran reached an agreement with Woodward for the sale of the THSA activities. The suitability of Woodward as a purchaser is being assessed separately.

back to top

Supreme Court asks preliminary questions on applicable law in case of damages claims following on EEA-wide single and continuous cartel infringements

Supreme Court, judgments of 20 June 2025

On 20 June 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court referred two sets of preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on applicable law in two judgments. The first case concerns follow-on claims for damages arising from the trucks cartel; the second case concerns follow-on claims for damages arising from the air cargo cartel. With respect to both the trucks cartel and the air cargo cartel, the Commission concluded that there was a single and continuing infringement of competition law.

In both cases, the question arose whether such a single and continuous infringement should be classified as one tort (harmful event) leading to one claim for damages per injured party, or as a tort leading to a separate claim for damages per transaction. In doing so, the Supreme Court also questions whether this qualification is to be made pursuant to EU law or whether this is left to the national law of the Member States. In both judgments, the Supreme Court therefore poses the preliminary question of whether EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, entails that a single and continuous infringement of competition law per injured party must be classified as a single unlawful conduct giving rise to a single claim for damages, or whether Member States are free to determine whether each transaction separately gives rise to separate claims for damages.

In the case regarding the trucks cartel, the Supreme Court also raises further questions regarding the Conflict of Laws (Tort) Act (“WCOD”) – which temporally applies to harmful events that occurred up to 11 January 2009 – and the Rome II Regulation – which applies to such events occurring from that date onwards. The Supreme Court wishes to ascertain whether the Rome II Regulation or the WCOD applies temporally to the entire infringement period of the single and continuous infringement, which commenced before 11 January 2009 but ended after that date. In addition, the Supreme Court requests the CJEU to clarify how the affected market within the meaning of Article 6(3)(a) Rome II Regulation should be interpreted in case of follow-on damages claims arising from an EEA-wide cartel and where the cartelised products were purchased in multiple countries from multiple cartel participants. Finally, the Supreme Court seeks clarification on whether the possibility of unilaterally choosing the applicable law under Article 6(3)(b) Rome II Regulation is open only to injured parties who have suffered damages themselves or also to claimants who have been assigned the claims, such as foundations.

back to top

District court has relative jurisdiction in related WAMCA proceedings against Samsung and LG

North Holland District Court, judgment of 16 April 2025

The District Court of North Holland has assumed (relative) jurisdiction over the claims against LG Electronics (“LG”) because there is sufficient connection with the claims against Samsung. Both cases are brought under the WAMCA.

Two foundations, Stichting Consumenten Competition Claims (“CCC”) and Stichting Eerlijke Prijzen & Marktwerking (“STEP”), brought collective claims against both Samsung and LG in relation to vertical price maintenance, for which the ACM previously imposed two separate fines (see the ACM decisions regarding Samsung and LG). In an earlier docket decision, the court had already ruled that CCC’s and STEP’s claims against LG relate to the same events. Pursuant to Article 1018d(3) of the Dutch Civil Code (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, “Rv”), such claims must be treated as one case in these circumstances.

In this case, LG claimed that not the District Court of North Holland but rather the District Court of Amsterdam has relative jurisdiction to rule on the claims against LG, pursuant to the main rule in Article 99 Rv, because LG has its registered office in Amsterdam. However, Article 107 Rv provides that if a court has relative jurisdiction over one joint defendant – in this case Samsung – it also has jurisdiction over the other defendant, provided there is sufficient connection between the claims.

Such a nexus was present, according to the court. An important factor in that respect was that STEP had sued both Samsung and LG with the same writ of summons. Moreover, Samsung and LG are accused of the same violation – resale price maintenance – in the same product market and in an overlapping infringement period. Crucially, the ACM itself had acknowledged in its decision vis-à-vis LG that “Samsung engaged in similar practices to LG” and that this “broader practice in the market” had to be taken into account in the assessment. For that reason, the court considers itself competent to hear not only STEP’s claims against Samsung but also STEP’s claims against LG, and by extension CCC’s claims against LG.

This ruling demonstrates that courts in WAMCA proceedings give weight to the importance of efficient and coordinated treatment of cases where practical. For plaintiffs in class actions, this is a positive development as it prevents fragmentation and conflicting judgments.

back to top

Consumer Association and foundation partly admissible in claims following on CRT cartels

Court of Appeal ‘s-Hertogenbosch, judgment of 27 May 2025

On 27 May 2025, the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal declared partially admissible the claims of the Consumers’ Association (Consumentenbond) and an unnamed foundation. The Consumers’ Association and the foundation filed a class action against Philips following its participation in the cartels in the cathode ray tubes (“CRT”)-sector for which the Commission fined Philips, among others, in 2012. The claims are based on Section 3:305a (old) of the Dutch Civil Code and can be divided into two categories. One category of the claims relate to obtaining a declaratory judgment that Philips acted unlawfully towards all (groups of) customers of CRT equipment by participating in the CRT cartels. The remaining claims are also aimed at obtaining declaratory relief, but concern the existence and amount of overcharge and umbrella damages resulting from the cartel.

The court of appeal ruled that the Consumers’ Association and the foundation are admissible with respect to the first category of claims because these claims focus on obtaining a declaratory judgment on the illegality of Philips’ actions. In contrast, the second category of claims essentially relate to the determination of the (amount of the) actual overcharge and umbrella damages. The appeals court concludes that these are claims intended to establish the extent of Philips’ compensation obligations to individual customers. However, that is not possible under Article 3:305a (old) of the Dutch Civil Code. After all, only a declaratory judgment can be claimed pursuant to that provision – claims for damages cannot be initiated, as opposed to the current Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code. With respect to these claims, the Consumers’ Association and the Foundation are therefore inadmissible.

back to top

Commission fines car manufacturers €458 million for cartel in recycling end-of-life vehicles

European Commission, decisions of 1 April 2025

On 1 April 2025, the Commission imposed fines totalling €458 million on 15 major automobile manufacturers as well as the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (“ACEA”) for participating in a cartel for the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. The cartel involved a single and continuous infringement over a period of more than 15 years: spanning from 29 May 2002 to 4 September 2017. In addition to the ACEA, almost all major automobile manufacturers participated in the cartel: Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Mitsubishi, Ford, BMW, Honda, Hyundaik/Kia, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Renault/Nissan, Opel, GM, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

The car manufacturers agreed among themselves (i) not to pay car dismantlers for processing end-of-life vehicles (the so-called “Zero-Treatment-Cost” strategy) and (ii) not to promote  how much of an end-of-life vehicle can be recycled, recovered and reused and how much recycled material is used in new cars. In doing so, the cartel participants tried to prevent consumers from considering recycling information when choosing a (new) car.

As the first leniency applicant, Mercedes-Benz received immunity. Stellantis and Opel applied for leniency after Mercedes-Benz and received a 50% reduction on their respective fines. Mitsubishi and Ford respectively received 30% and 20% reductions on their fines. The amounts of the fines vary widely. For instance, ACEA was fined only €500,000 because of its facilitating role and the fact that all member automakers were also fined individually. Stellantis, despite the 50% discount, was still fined nearly € 75 million; Volkswagen received the highest fine of over € 127 million.

back to top

CJEU clarifies conditions for justification of exclusive distribution system

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 8 May 2025

In line with the opinion of Advocate General Medina, the CJEU has clarified the conditions under which an exclusive distribution system can be justified under the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (“VBER”’). The CJEU confirmed that such a system requires that other buyers have, in some way, agreed not to actively sell into the exclusive territory.

The case arose from Belgian proceedings brought by exclusive distributor Beevers Kaas (“Beevers”) against Albert Heijn. Beevers accused Albert Heijn of infringing honest market practices by selling Beemster cheese in Belgium, despite knowing of the exclusive distribution agreement between Beevers and supplier and producer, Cono. Under the agreement, Beevers had been designated as the exclusive distributor for Belgium and Luxembourg. However, the agreement did not prohibit Beevers from selling outside that territory. Similarly, Albert Heijn had been appointed as exclusive distributor for the Netherlands, but was not contractually prevented from selling in other Member States, including Belgium and Luxembourg.

The question arose whether, under the old VBER, an exclusive distribution arrangement could benefit from the exemption if the agreement only allocated territorial exclusivity without also expressly restricting active sales by other distributors into the protected territory — a principle known as ‘parallel imposition’. The CJEU answered in the negative. It held that an exclusive distribution system is only effective — and thus eligible for exemption — if the supplier not only grants territorial exclusivity but also protects the distributor from active sales by other appointed buyers into that same territory. This principle is now explicitly codified in Article 4(b)(i) of the new VBER, but the CJEU has confirmed that it also applied under the old regulation by implication.

The Court then turned to how such ‘parallel imposition’ can be evidenced in the absence of an explicit contractual clause. Referring to the Super Bock judgment, the CJEU stated that there must be a concurrence of wills, which can be inferred not only from a direct of explicit contractual condition, but also from an express or tacit acquiescence. In this case, it must be shown that:
(i) Cono invited its buyer — in any form whatsoever — not to engage in active sales into the exclusive territory allocated to Beevers, and (ii) that the buyer expressly or tacitly acquiesced to that invitation. As this concerns an evidentiary issue, the CJEU left the assessment to the national court. However, it noted that the mere fact that no other customer (aside from Albert Heijn) made active sales in the territory cannot, on its own, provide proof that Cono invited its buyer to agree to the exclusivity. While this might indicate a tacit acquiescence, it could also reflect independent commercial decisions by other buyers. Without evidence of an express invitation by the supplier, such behaviour alone is insufficient to establish the existence of an agreement, the CJEU held.

back to top

Commission fines Delivery Hero and Glovo €329 million for participation in online food delivery cartel

European Commission, decision of 2 June 2025

The Commission has fined Delivery Hero and Glovo a total of €329 million for participating in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. The cartel lasted four years and covered the entire EEA, during which the companies agreed not to actively solicit each other’s staff (so-called “no-poach”), exchanged commercially sensitive information, and agreed to divide geographic markets among themselves. This conduct was enabled and facilitated by Delivery Hero’s minority stake in Glovo, which incrementally expanded to full control in 2022. The Commission characterised the conduct as a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

Notably, this is the first time the Commission has adopted a cartel decision relating to anticompetitive behaviour in the labour market as well as the first time it penalised an anti-competitive use of a minority stake in a competitor. Both companies acknowledged their involvement and agreed to a settlement procedure, leading to a standard 10% reduction in the fines imposed.

back to top

First DMA non-compliance fines of €500 and €200 million for Apple and Meta

European Commission, decisions of 23 April 2025

The Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) not only has teeth, it can actually bite. This was demonstrated by the Commission’s decisions of 23 April 2025 (Apple, Meta) to impose fines of €500 million and €200 million on Apple and Meta, respectively. These mark the first sanctions for a violation of the DMA and follow the initial non-compliance investigations launched by the Commission on 25 March 2024 (see also CF Q2 2024).

The €500 million fine on Apple concerns its core platform service (“CPS”) Apple App Store. According to the Commission, Apple violated the so-called anti-steering prohibition, enshrined in Article 5(4) of the DMA, by restricting how app developers could inform users within their apps about alternative distribution channels and (cheaper) payment methods outside the App Store. According to the Commission, Apple failed to show that the restrictions were objectively necessary and proportionate. Parallel to this investigation, the Commission conducted a second investigation into Apple’s possible non-compliance with the DMA regarding its iOS operating system. The Commission has since closed that investigation after a ‘constructive dialogue’ with Apple. This led to users now being able to more easily remove default apps from their devices and adjust the default settings of the iOS operating system. These decisions are separate from the specification decisions the Commission has recently taken on the measures Apple must take to meet the interoperability obligation of Article 6.7 of the DMA.

The fine of €200 million imposed on Meta relates to the ‘consent or pay’-model that Meta used from March 2024 – the date on which the DMA obligations became legally binding – until November 2024. The Commission examined whether this model violated the obligation of Article 5.2 of the DMA: companies must seek consent to combine or cross-link users’ personal data across different CPSs. Users who do not give consent must be given access to a less personalised but full-fledged alternative. The binary choice Meta offered – either pay or consent to data use – did not meet that requirement. At the same time as imposing the fine, the Commission decided to no longer classify Meta’s Marketplace service as a CPS, since the platform had fewer than 10,000 business users in 2024. As a result, it is no longer considered an important gateway for businesses to reach end users.

back to top

Rotterdam District Court: order subject to penalty payments Apple rightly imposed by ACM

Rotterdam District Court, judgment of 16 June 2025

The order subject to penalty payments issued to Apple was lawfully imposed by the ACM, the Rotterdam District Court ruled on 16 June 2025. In 2021, the ACM found that Apple had infringed Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act (Mededingingswet, “Mw”) and Article 102 TFEU by imposing unfair conditions on dating app providers. Back in 2021, the preliminary relief judge of the Rotterdam District Court suspended part of the order and reduced the maximum penalty Apple could incur (see also CF Q4 2021). In 2022, the ACM ruled that Apple had not fully or timely complied with the order and claimed penalty payments totalling €50 million. The Rotterdam District Court has now largely upheld the upheld the ACM’s enforcement order and ruled that the ACM was right to open proceedings to recover the incurred fine.

The case concerns the conditions Apple imposed on dating app providers, including the mandatory use of Apple’s in-app payment system (the so-called IAP-requirement), a 30% commission, and a ban on directing users to external payment methods (anti-steering). According to the ACM, Apple abused its dominant position because dating apps had no realistic alternatives for distribution and were dependent on Apple for broad user access.

The court ruled that the ACM correctly defined the relevant market. Alternative distribution channels such as Android app stores, websites, or Progressive Web Apps do not constitute realistic substitutes for the App Store. On that market – which consists solely of the App Store – Apple holds a 100% market share and thus a dominant position. The court further found that the ACM was right in concluding that Apple abused that dominant position by imposing unfair conditions on dating app providers. Apple failed to provide a convincing economic justification for its practices, while less intrusive alternatives were available. Moreover, Apple applies its conditions inconsistently, which undermines its arguments regarding user experience, security, and the value of its services, the court said.

back to top

ACM launches online ‘DSA check’

Authority for Consumers and Markets, publication of 7 May 2025

On 7 May 2025, the ACM published an ‘informational tool’ that allows companies to check whether their websites and apps need to comply with the Digital Services Act (“DSA”): the “DSA check”. Since February 2024, new rules apply to providers of online services based on the DSA. Because the obligations under the DSA are layered, not all rules apply to every business. In addition, the rules may only apply to specific services offered by a company. In order to provide clarity on which rules apply to which services, the ACM developed the DSA check.

The tool functions as a digital decision tree, guiding businesses through a series of multiple-choice questions to determine which DSA obligations apply to them. For example, one question asks whether the website or app in question is used for conducting an economic activity; websites or apps not used for economic purposes do not fall under the DSA rules. The DSA Check is intended for webshops, online marketplaces, and websites or apps featuring user-generated content. With this tool, the ACM aims to help businesses easily and clearly identify which obligations they must comply with and for which services.

back to top

(Big) Tech in the spotlight: ACM publishes key priorities digital economy

Authority for Consumers and Markets, publication of 12 May 2025

In recent years, the ACM’s remit in relation to the digital economy has expanded significantly. For example, a wave of (European) digital legislation has been added, such as the DMA, the DSA, the Platform to Business Regulation (“P2B Regulation”), the Data Act and the Data Governance Act. The ACM is also increasingly applying its existing powers, such as competition and consumer protection law, to the digital sector. By publishing its key priorities, the ACM brings together all its supervisory tasks into a coherent and integrated action plan for 2025.

The ACM has structured its focus around four pillars. The first of these is “fair access to online markets for people and businesses”, focusing on improving and protecting competition between large and small tech companies. The ACM states it will complete an investigation in 2025 into potential abuse of market power in the Netherlands by a specific online platform. It will also launch a new investigation into possible abuse of dominance by a software company. At the same time, and in coordination with the Commission, the ACM has launched two investigations into compliance with DMA rules.

The second pillar, “safe and accessible online environments: protecting online users”, concerns consumer protection. The ACM will focus on DSA compliance by web hosting services. It will also continue to take enforcement action against online consumer deception, including fake reviews, dark patterns and other generally misleading marketing techniques. The third pillar, “sharing data securely and reliably for innovation”, addresses responsible and reliable data practices by companies. With the fourth and final pillar, “collaboration in order to prevent gaps and overlap in oversight”, the ACM outlines how it intends to conduct efficient supervision in cooperation with other Dutch and European authorities.

back to top

ACM not liable for damages following unlawful company visit

District Court of The Hague, judgment of 21 May 2025

In a judgment dated 21 May 2025, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the ACM (the State) is not liable for damages following the annulment of a fining decision that had been based on an unlawful company visit. As part of an investigation into compliance with consumer protection rules in the telemarketing of energy contracts, the ACM carried out a company visit in November 2021 at the premises of Global Marketing Bridge B.V. (“GMB”), an intermediary that acquires customers for energy suppliers by telephone. Prior to the visit, the ACM had already received indications — including from the landlord Regus — that operations at that address might have continued under a different company name: Sales Innovators B.V. (“SI”). Nonetheless, the ACM’s investigation mandate referred only to GMB and its affiliates. Upon arrival, ACM officials were informed that GMB was no longer operating at the location, and that SI was now based there. Despite this, the ACM chose to continue its inspection. The visit ultimately led to a fine being imposed on SI and its de facto director.

In subsequent interim relief proceedings, the interim relief judge held that for the purposes of defining the scope of the investigation, it is not decisive whether SI had factually taken over GMB’s activities. Since SI simply fell outside the group of companies identified in the ACM’s decision to conduct the visit, the inspection was found to have violated Article 8 ECHR and Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. As the evidence supporting the fine had been obtained during the unlawful visit, the judge suspended both the fine and its publication (see also CF Q1 2024).

Following this, the ACM withdrew the fining decision. SI subsequently brought a civil claim seeking, among other things, compensation for legal costs incurred (i) during the preliminary phase (from the time of the company visit up to the fining decision), and
(ii) during the administrative phase (after the decision was issued). While the court acknowledged that, due to their withdrawal, the decisions were undisputedly unlawful, it found that the ACM would have investigated SI anyway, had the error in the investigation scope not occurred. Therefore, no causal link could be established between the unlawful visit and the preparatory legal costs. As for the costs incurred in the administrative proceedings, the court held that jurisdiction rests exclusively with the administrative courts, not the civil court. Accordingly, all claims — including those for non-material damages — were dismissed.

back to top

Company visit lawful vis-à-vis GMB

District Court of Rotterdam, judgment of 19 June 2025

As regards GMB itself (see above), the Rotterdam District Court ruled in its judgment of 19 June 2025 that the ACM was justified in imposing fines on GMB and two of its executives for engaging in unfair commercial practices in the telemarketing of energy contracts. One of the executives was also held liable as a de facto director.

The fines were based in part on evidence gathered during the company visit discussed above. The court held that all evidence, including that obtained during the visit, had been lawfully acquired. Even if the ACM had acted unlawfully towards SI during the visit, this would not automatically render the ACM’s conduct towards GMB and its executives unlawful. The court pointed to the relativity requirement under Article 8:69a of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, “Awb”), which stipulates that a party can only invoke legal provisions that are intended to protect its own interests. Accordingly, GMB and its executives could not rely on provisions that – in this case – are meant to protect SI. Furthermore, the court found that the ACM’s actions did not amount to a ‘fishing expedition’. The authority had already targeted GMB and its executives based on signals suggesting misconduct in its business operations. The ACM did not act arbitrarily or abuse its powers, as it had concrete information indicating that GMB was operating from the locations visited. It was only during the company visit that it became apparent GMB was no longer based there.

The court also rejected arguments that the fines were unlawful simply because the ACM had chosen not to fine other executives or contracting energy suppliers. The fines against GMB and the two individuals were, in the court’s view, lawful and justified. It further held that the fines imposed for de facto management of the violations were appropriate. The executives had received multiple signals indicating that energy contracts were being sold contrary to consumer protection laws, yet had failed to take adequate steps to prevent or stop the unlawful conduct.

Finally, the court ruled that the fines were both proportionate and necessary, and therefore upheld the fining decision. However, it did apply a 5% reduction to each fine ex officio, to the extent that the reduction did not exceed €5,000, due to the exceeding of the reasonable time limit.

back to top

ECtHR confirms: transmission of intercept data to NMa justified

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 1 April 2025

On 1 April 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) confirmed its earlier judgment that the transmission of lawfully obtained evidence by means of wiretaps to the former Dutch Competition Authority (“NMa”) did not violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The case concerns two Dutch cartel cases (i.e., Marine Waste and Limburg Construction), both of which stemmed from criminal proceedings primarily focused on fraud. In both cases, law enforcement authorities lawfully intercepted telephone conversations of company employees pursuant to judicial authorisation granted by the examining magistrate (rechter-commissaris). Upon reviewing the intercepted communications, the police discovered evidence of potential price-fixing in breach of Dutch and EU competition law. The transcripts of these conversations were subsequently forwarded to the NMa, which used them as key evidence in its infringement decisions of 29 October 2010 (Limburg Construction) and 16 November 2011 (Marine Waste).

After a long judicial process before the District Court of Rotterdam and the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, “CBb”, see the final judgments here and here), the ECtHR in this judgment addresses the question of whether the transmission of information to the NMa was justified. First, it is undisputed that the transmission leads to an ‘interference’ with Article 8 ECHR that must be justified. The ECtHR subsequently examines whether, in addition to the initial tapping, the transfer in itself (i) is provided by law, (ii) pursues a legitimate aim, and (iii) is necessary in a democratic society (also called: proportional and a ‘pressing social need’). In doing so, the ECtHR introduces the following guidelines: (i) the intercepted material must have been obtained in accordance with the ECHR, (ii) the conditions for transfer must be clearly regulated by law, (iii) there must be adequate safeguards for the examination, use and storage and destruction of the material, and (iv) there must be effective legal protection.

The ECtHR found that the Dutch Judicial and Criminal Records Act (“WJSG”) provides a legal basis for the transmission of information to the NMa, referring specifically to Article 39f. The ECtHR considered that the fact the purposes of such transmission are described in broad terms, and that the NMa is not explicitly named as a potential recipient, does not undermine the foreseeability of the transfer under Article 8 ECHR. The Court further reiterated that Article 8 does not require the undertaking concerned to be informed in advance of the transmission, as such notification would risk compromising the confidential nature of criminal investigations. That said, in the Marine Waste case, where the undertakings involved were already aware of both the criminal proceedings (and probably the wiretaps) and the subsequent competition investigation, the ECtHR found it “regrettable” that they were not notified beforehand. Nonetheless, the Court emphasised that both the Rotterdam District Court and the CBb had reviewed the lawfulness of the authorities’ conduct under Article 8 ECHR in the administrative proceedings. In the ECtHR’s view, this provided adequate legal protection to challenge the legality and proportionality of the data transmission ex post, even though it was not a formal ‘decision’ within the meaning of the Awb. The Court also noted that civil proceedings had been available, and had indeed been pursued in the Limburg Construction case. In light of these procedural safeguards, the ECtHR also found no violation of Article 13 ECHR, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy.

Finally, the Court underlined the strong public interest in the effective enforcement of competition law, noting the importance of inter-agency cooperation between competition and criminal authorities. This is particularly relevant in cases such as the present one, where the infringements revealed by the intercept material (here: price-fixing arrangements) are “undoubtedly serious” and potentially capable of causing significant harm, especially in view of the high market shares held by the undertakings involved and the systematic and repeated nature of those violations. Accordingly, the ECtHR found no violation of the Convention and dismissed the actions.

back to top

General Court dismisses Symrise appeal against Commission dawn raid decision

General Court of the European Union, judgment of 30 April 2025

In its judgment of 30 April 2025, the General Court of the European Union (“General Court”) dismissed the action brought by Symrise AG (“Symrise”) seeking annulment of a decision by the European Commission authorising an inspection of its business premises. Symrise is one of the world’s largest producers of fragrances. The Commission suspected that Symrise and three other fragrance manufacturers had exchanged commercially sensitive information and had coordinated their market behaviour, contrary to the cartel prohibition.

Consequently, the Commission decided to carry out an unannounced inspection (a ‘dawn raid’). On appeal before the General Court, Symrise argued that the inspection decision was arbitrary and disproportionate in relation to its right to privacy. In addition, it claimed that the decision lacked sufficient reasoning: the object and purpose of the inspection were allegedly stated too vaguely, and the reasoning was not expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.

The General Court held that the Commission is required to clearly identify the suspicions it intends to verify. This includes an obligation to explain the essential characteristics of the suspected infringement, including the degree of involvement of the undertaking concerned — in this case, Symrise. Although the Commission did not explicitly detail Symrise’s involvement, the Court found that this was nonetheless sufficiently evident from the text of the decision. Furthermore, the Court held that the Commission’s reasoning was sufficiently clear and unambiguous. At the preliminary stage of an investigation into suspected cartel conduct, the Commission cannot be expected to have a fully defined legal assessment. The General Court therefore dismissed the arguments concerning inadequate reasoning as unfounded.

Symrise’s objections regarding arbitrariness and proportionality in light of its right to privacy were also rejected. The Court found that the Commission’s suspicions were well-founded, partly because they were based on information from third parties, publicly available sources, and investigations by other competition authorities into the same set of facts. Moreover, the Court held that the duration of the on-site inspection was proportionate in light of Symrise’s right to privacy: the inspection lasted only three days, after which the collected data was examined at the Commission’s premises and at the offices of Symrise’s legal counsel. Accordingly, the General Court dismissed Symrise’s action in its entirety.

back to top

ACM largely approves Schiphol’s new charges and conditions

Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 27 May 2025

By decision of 27 May 2025, the ACM largely approved the new charges and conditions proposed by Royal Schiphol Group (“RSG”) for the period 2025-2027. This decision followed RSG’s proposal of 31 October 2024 under which airport charges for airlines would increase by an average of 37%. In response, several airlines and representative organisations submitted a request to the ACM to assess the proposed charges and conditions against the requirements of reasonableness, cost-orientation, and non-discrimination under the Dutch Aviation Act (Wet luchtvaart, “Wlv”).* Consistent with its approach in the previous tariff period, the ACM adopted a relatively restrained standard of review. Once again, the ACM declined to uphold objections raised by the airlines concerning, inter alia, a lack of transparency and stakeholder consultation, insufficient efficiency incentives, inadequate justification for investment needs, and the unprecedented scale of the increase, partially attributable to COVID-19-related cost settlements. The ACM also rejected more general criticism regarding RSG’s significantly tightened differentiation of landing and take-off charges based on noise and emissions. According to the ACM, the Wlv does not require that such differentiation, in the context of environmental objectives, be strictly proportionate to actual noise or emissions levels.

However, in line with its earlier suspension decision, the ACM held that RSG’s proposed exclusion of certain ‘noisy’ aircraft types was incompatible with the Wlv. The ACM considered such a measure to constitute an operating restriction, which exceeds the powers of an airport operator under the Balanced Approach Regulation. It also conflicts with the (partially) negative opinion of the European Commission issued during the balanced approach procedure on the proposed capacity reduction at Schiphol. As the Minister for Infrastructure and Water Management has already restricted the ban on these aircraft types to night-time operations, based on the Commission’s advice, RSG is not authorised to implement a broader restriction (i.e. also covering daytime operations). According to the ACM, only once the relevant ministerial regulation enters into force may RSG incorporate the night-time ban into its charging conditions.

All other objections raised by the applicants were dismissed. RSG’s revised airport charges entered into force on 1 April 2025.

*Bas Braeken and Demi van den Berg represent TUI Airlines Netherlands in these proceedings

back to top

ACM declares VodafoneZiggo telemarketing commitments binding

Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 12 June 2025

On 12 June 2025, the ACM declared the commitments offered by VodafoneZiggo legally binding. The commitments were submitted in the context of an investigation into the company’s compliance with Article 11.7 of the Dutch Telecommunications Act (Telecommunicatiewet, “Tw”), which requires that commercial telephone calls may only be made to consumers with their prior consent. Such consent must also be demonstrable upon request.

The ACM launched its investigation following signals that individuals were receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls promoting VodafoneZiggo’s services. The investigation focused on VodafoneZiggo’s compliance with its legal obligations in the context of outsourced telemarketing activities. The ACM found that VodafoneZiggo had failed to take adequate measures to ensure compliance with Article 11.7 Tw.

In the commitments now accepted by the ACM, VodafoneZiggo acknowledges its chain responsibility for all telemarketing activities by, or on behalf of, the company. VodafoneZiggo has offered a comprehensive list of commitments. These include the proper collection, recording, and storage of so-called ‘opt-ins’ (express consent to be contacted) and ‘opt-outs’ (requests not to be contacted). Additionally, VodafoneZiggo has committed to implementing an additional verbal verification step when contacting a consumer by phone for the first time after an opt-in has been registered. According to VodafoneZiggo, this measure satisfies the ACM’s request for a ‘pause’ in the process to confirm consumer consent. VodafoneZiggo also commits to ongoing structural monitoring of its telemarketing partners. This includes the preparation of call scripts, conducting audits, and the imposition of corrective measures where necessary — including, in extreme cases, the termination of contracts with non-compliant intermediaries.

The commitment decision applies for a period of two years, during which VodafoneZiggo must report to the ACM on three occasions regarding its compliance. As part of the commitments, VodafoneZiggo has also agreed to make a €25,000 donation to the National Elderly Fund (Nationaal Ouderenfonds). Taking this financial gesture into account, the ACM considers that the commitments are sufficient to eliminate the identified risks and to ensure future compliance.

back to top

ACM publishes 2024 Postal and Parcel Markets Scan

Authority for Consumers and Markets, publication of 12 June 2025

The ACM has recently published its 2024 Postal and Parcel Monitor. This annual report, prepared on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, provides an overview of developments in the postal and parcel delivery sector. While the monitor covers the entire sector, the ACM is, by law, only authorised to supervise the quality of the Universal Postal Service (“UPS”). The UPS accounts for approximately 15% of all postal traffic. The remaining business mail — which constitutes around 95% of the national mail volume – and the parcel delivery market currently fall outside the scope of regulation.

The ACM reports that in 2024, the number of letters sent continued to decline, extending a downward trend that began in 2020. In addition to falling mail volumes and corresponding revenues, the reliability of mail delivery has also deteriorated significantly in recent years. In 2024, only 86% of mail was delivered the following day — well below the statutory norm of 95%. In 2023, the figure stood at 89%. The ACM notes that this trend is also reflected in the sharp rise in consumer complaints it has received.

By contrast, parcel volumes continue to grow. The ACM observes a 12% increase in the volume of international parcels in 2024, although revenue from these deliveries rose by only 5.7%. This discrepancy is attributed to the growing popularity of Asian e-commerce platforms, such as Temu and AliExpress, which frequently send low-cost parcels to Dutch consumers. While PostNL remains the largest operator in the parcel market with a market share of 45–50%, competitor DHL continues to close the gap. DHL’s market share rose from 35–40% in 2023 to 40–45% in 2024, according to the ACM.

back to top

Objections to order subject to penalty payments Lactalis unfounded

Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 27 March 2025 (update April 2025)

On 27 March 2025, the ACM declared both the objections lodged by Royal Lactalis Leerdammer (“Lactalis”) and the Supplier Association Leerdammer Collective (“LVLC”) as unfounded.

The objections concerned the ACM’s decision of September 2024 to impose an order subject to periodic penalty payments on Lactalis for violating the Unfair Commercial Practices Act for the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain (“UCPAFS”). The ACM had issued the enforcement order following a complaint submitted by LVLC, which alleged that Lactalis had breached the statutory prohibition on unilateral amendments to pricing conditions, specifically relating to the milk price. As a result, Lactalis was ordered to revise its pricing terms.

In its objection, Lactalis maintained that it had not breached the UCPAFS, whereas LVLC claimed that Lactalis had committed additional violations beyond the milk price issue. The ACM found that Lactalis’ method for determining milk prices — whereby dairy farmers were not informed in advance of the price they would receive, how it was calculated, and had no opportunity to negotiate — did indeed constitute a violation of the UCPAFS. However, the ACM dismissed LVLC’s additional complaints and extended the compliance deadline, given the absence of further infringements and the need for Lactalis to consult with dairy farmers to implement a new pricing model.

In April 2025, Lactalis submitted revised supply terms to its milk suppliers — the members of LVLC — which included a new pricing mechanism. The ACM reviewed the updated terms and concluded that the system was sufficiently transparent and based on objective criteria. The ACM found that Lactalis now complies with the requirements of the UCPAFS.

The UCPAFS, which entered into force on 1 November 2021, aims to strengthen the negotiating position of farmers, horticulturalists, and fishers in dealings with larger and more powerful market players. However, ACM research indicates that many buyers and suppliers remain unfamiliar with the Act and its prohibitions, and that such unfair practices are often underreported. For example, many market participants are unaware that they can report late payments, unilateral contractual amendments, or last-minute order cancellations.

back to top

ACM outlines approach into market investigation veterinary practices

Authority for Consumers and Markets, publication of 13 May 2025

Following its earlier announcement of a market investigation into veterinary services for pets, the ACM has now published its methodology and consultation memo. This document sets out the rationale for the investigation, the underlying hypotheses to be tested, and several initial directions for potential recommendations.

According to the ACM, it has received multiple indications that the market for veterinary services may not be functioning optimally. For instance, while the number of pets in the Netherlands has increased in recent years, the sector has simultaneously experienced growing pressure due to workforce shortages. In addition, pet owners have raised concerns about unnecessary treatments or referrals, high costs, lack of price transparency, and limited consumer choice — all of which could point to weakened competition between veterinary practices. The ACM will conduct a sector-wide analysis in 2025 to assess whether these concerns reflect structural market issues. The investigation will focus on three core areas, being (i) consumer decision-making and access to information, (ii) options for consumers in the area, and (iii) the business operations and strategies of providers.

As part of the third pillar, the ACM highlights the growing number of acquisitions by large investors, including private equity firms. These players, according to the ACM, often operate under profit-maximisation models and may integrate services such as pet food and pharmaceuticals across different business units, raising potential concerns about vertical integration and market power.

The ACM also outlines a number of possible regulatory responses, which may include enhanced transparency requirements, including partial price regulation (e.g. price ceilings for emergency care), stricter merger control, and/or measures to increase supply, such as making veterinary education more attractive. The ACM also indicates it may examine adjacent markets, including pet insurance, to explore whether a greater role for pet insurances is possible.

Stakeholders are invited to provide input on the proposed approach. The ACM aims to publish a draft report by the end of 2025.

back to top

CBb: MRN concession must be amended to protect MaaS providers

Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal, interim judgment of 30 June 2025

In its interim relief judgment of 30 June 2025, the CBb ordered the State Secretary for Public Transport and the Environment to amend aspects of the main rail network concession (“MRN concession”) in favour of providers of ‘Mobility as a Service’ (“MaaS”). MaaS services provide travellers with the possibility to travel door-to-door using a physical card or app (such as a public transport card with a subscription). Railway transport is an important component of such services. Several undertakings are active on the Dutch MaaS market, the largest of which is Nederlandse Spoorwegen (“NS”). NS also holds the MRN concession, which contains the exclusive right to operate the main railway network. NS is therefore not only a transport provider, but also a competitor of other MaaS providers. MaaS providers operate in the margin between the wholesale rates that NS offers them and the retail rates NS offers to, for example, consumers. To facilitate door-to-door travel, the MRN concession includes obligations that NS must comply with, such as the obligation to meet the so-called ‘MaaS-waardige bestekseisen’. The wholesale rate is generally determined based on a reference offer submitted by NS, which is then subject to assessment by the State Secretary. According to the MaaS providers, the MRN concession does not contain sufficiently strict and concrete obligations for NS and the State Secretary regarding the calculation and assessment of this reference offer. This creates a real risk that NS may abuse its dominant position under the MRN concession to distort competition in the MaaS market, thereby violating Article 106(1) TFEU and Article 102 TFEU.

The CBb concurs with the views of the MaaS providers. As the market for public railway transport is closely connected to the MaaS market, the way in which NS exercises its exclusive right under the MRN concession directly affects the extent to which MaaS providers can deliver their services. The fact that NS itself is active on the MaaS market further supports this conclusion. According to the CBb, the obligations in the MRN concession regarding the wholesale rate offered by NS to MaaS providers do not sufficiently mitigate the aforementioned risk.

In this interim judgment, the CBb orders the State Secretary to remedy these shortcomings in the MRN concession in the following ways. Firstly, the MRN concession must specify that the wholesale rate for MaaS providers must be transparent, non-discriminatory, and competitive, in order to ensure a level playing field between NS and other MaaS providers. These conditions will serve as the basis for the later assessment of the reference offer. Moreover, the concession must clearly specify the methodology used to calculate and assess the reference offer. Under the wholesale rate conditions, MaaS providers must be able to match NS’ retail rate in terms of both price and additional features. Finally, it must be ensured that any changes to the ‘MaaS-waardige bestekseisen’ that are disadvantageous to MaaS providers do not automatically carry over into the MRN concession.

The State Secretary must implement these changes no later than 1 September 2025 and must, by 1 October 2025, either approve NS’ reference offer or determine a wholesale tariff himself.

For all your questions regarding (EU) competition law, bureau Brandeis would be happy to assist.

Bas Braeken – Jade Versteeg – Lara Elzas – Timo Hieselaar – Demi van den Berg – Joost van Belois

Related articles
To
top