NL EN FR
/ Journal / Competition Flashback

Competition Flashback Q2 2026 – EU and Dutch competition law developments

Bas Braeken & Jade Versteeg & Timo Hieselaar & Demi van den Berg & Joost van Belois & Lisanne Kooijman
27 Jul 2026

This is the Competition Flashback Q2 2026 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 2026

Merger control, FDI & FSR

Digital markets

Cartels & vertical restrictions

Abuse of a dominant position

Claims for damages for infringements of competition law

Consumer law and unfair trading practices

Public Enterprises (Market Activities) Act

ACM conditionally approves acquisition of Rivier by NS Group and Transdev

Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 8 April 2026

On 8 April 2026, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM”) granted conditional approval for the indirect joint acquisition of Rivier B.V. (“Rivier”) by NS Group N.V. (“NS”) and Transdev Nederland N.V. (“Transdev”) through subsidiary RIG. The ACM concludes that the transaction poses competition risks, but that the remedies offered by the parties sufficiently address these risks.

Rivier is the wholesale ‘Mobility as a Service’ (“MaaS”) platform that facilitates links between, on the one hand, public transport operators and shared mobility providers, and, on the other hand, the apps, websites and passes that travellers use to plan, book and pay for their journeys. Rivier was jointly established in 2020 by NS, GVB, RET and HTM. The current acquisition is, in essence, a repeat of the steps that were taking at that time. When Rivier was established, the ACM had already identified four non-horizontal competition risks: collusion by public transport operators, discriminatory access to the platform, foreclosure of mobility providers and misuse of competitively sensitive information. These risks still exist and, following the concentration, also apply to Transdev as the new indirect shareholder. There are no horizontal risks because NS and Transdev do not compete for the same public transport concessions.

The remedies are largely the same as those from 2020 and relate to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) access to the platform, non-exclusivity, the provision of public transport services to all MaaS providers, and safeguards against the exchange of competitively sensitive information. In addition, the conditions are being amended in two respects. Firstly, they are being technically extended to reflect the new control structure. Secondly, the supervisory regime is being relaxed: the monitoring trustee is now only required to draw up a full report once every three years; in the intervening years, an annual letter from RIG to the ACM will suffice. The ACM considers this proportionate, as five years of practice have shown that the remedies are effective and no infringements have been identified.

back to top

BTI publishes 2025 annual report: record number of notifications, first fine for gun jumping and expansion of remit

Investment Screening Bureau, annual report of April 2026

In April 2026, the Investment Screening Bureau (Bureau Toetsing Investeringen, “BTI”) published its annual report for 2025. The report shows that the number of notifications is growing steadily, partly as a result of increasing geopolitical tensions and a rising number of investments in sensitive technologies.

In total, the BTI received 78 new notifications under the investment screening regime in 2025. This is an increase compared with previous years. Of the 91 cases processed (including 13 carried over from 2024), 76 were concluded. In 66 cases, unconditional approval was granted; only two cases resulted in conditional approval. Eight notifications were withdrawn or not considered due to the absence of an assessment framework. No prohibitions were imposed. The average processing time was 37 days.

It is noteworthy that, for the first time, the BTI imposed an administrative fine pursuant to Article 51(3) of the Vifo Act. The fine related to a transaction that had taken place without the mandatory prior notification. In addition, in 2025, the Minister decided to convert a prohibition previously imposed in 2024 into conditional approval, following an appeal procedure and the emergence of new information that had not been known at the time the prohibition decision was taken.

back to top

Extension of sensitive technologies under Vifo Act as of 1 January 2027

Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, publication of 9 June 2026

On 9 June 2026, Minister Herbert presented the amended draft of the amendment to the Decree on the Scope of Application of Sensitive Technology (Besluit toepassingsbereik sensitieve technologie, “BTST”) under the Vifo Act to both Houses of Parliament (see our CF Q4 2024 regarding the initial draft).

Following the consultation period, which ran until 31 January 2025, two amendments were made. Firstly, the reference to ‘commercial standards’ has been removed from the description of advanced materials technology (AST 5), to make the definition more workable for both BTI and the business community. Secondly, the definition of artificial intelligence (AST 6) has been narrowed to focus more specifically on the identification of individuals and groups, in response to concerns that the previous wording would also cover low-risk applications.

Otherwise, the scope remains unchanged; the amending decree adds a number of specific technologies within six new technology areas to the BTST: advanced materials (AST 5), artificial intelligence (AST 6), biotechnology (AST 7), nanotechnology (AST 8), sensor and navigation technology (AST 9) and nuclear technology for medical use (AST 10). All these technology areas are also classified as ‘highly sensitive’, meaning that the acquisition of 10% of the voting rights in a company active in the field of one of these areas is subject to notification. Similarly, a number of dual use technologies listed in Regulation 2021/821 relating to information security and laser-satellite communications are classified as highly sensitive.

In light of the political agreement recently reached at European level, the Minister notes that virtually all newly added technologies – with the exception of AI – fall outside the mandatory minimum scope of application of the FDI Regulation, which has yet to enter into force. The amending decision constitutes a separate process and does not stand in the way of the subsequent national implementation of the FDI Regulation, according to the Minister.

Following its submission to Parliament, the decision will be referred to the Council of State for advice. The intended date of entry into force is currently 1 January 2027.

back to top

Merger highlights European Commission

 

Holcim / Xella

On 12 June 2026, the Commission conditionally approved the proposed acquisition of Xella International S.A. (“Xella”) by Holcim Ltd (“Holcim”). Both companies operate in the construction sector, with Xella supplying building materials and Holcim primarily supplying cement, aggregates and ready-mixed concrete, as well as building materials. Initially, the Commission raised concerns about reduced competition in the supply of autoclaved aerated concrete (“AAC”). Both Xella and Holcim are leading suppliers of AAC in Romania. To address these concerns, Holcim has offered to divest its AAC block factory in Adjud, Romania. Subject to this condition, the Commission has approved the acquisition.

 

Carlyle / BASF Coatings

On 2 June 2026, the Commission conditionally approved the acquisition of BASF’s coatings division (“BASF Coatings”) by The Carlyle Group Inc. (“Carlyle”). Carlyle is a global investment firm. Carlyle owns Nouryon Ltd. (“Nouryon”), which is active in the development and supply of essential chemical ingredients, additives and intermediates for various markets. BASF Coating develops, manufactures and sells coatings products for the automotive and aerospace industries. Nouryon is a key supplier to BASF Coatings. According to the Commission, the transaction as originally notified would have led to foreclosure in the markets in which Nouryon and BASF Coatings operate. Furthermore, there was a risk that the merged entities could use the commercially sensitive information held by Nouryon to disadvantage BASF Coatings’ competitors. To address the Commission’s concerns, Carlyle has offered to divest Nouryon’s global polysulphide business in its entirety. Subject to the condition that the purchaser possesses the necessary expertise in the chemical industry, the Commission has approved the acquisition.

 

UPM-Kymmene Sappi / JV

On 28 April 2026, the Commission announced that it had launched a second-phase investigation into the proposed creation of a joint venture by UPM-Kymmene Corporations (“UPM”) and Sappi Limited (“Sappi”), the two largest companies in the field of communication paper products (used for, amongst other things, newspapers, magazines and books). Based on its preliminary investigation, the Commission fears that the merger could lead to lower quality, fewer choices or higher prices in the markets for magazine paper, fine paper, speciality paper and self-adhesive labels. With regard to magazine and fine paper, the Commission has concluded that UMP and Sappi’s competitors are significant suppliers in this market, and that the merged entity will control a significant share of total production capacity in the EEA. The competitors of these companies have no means of offsetting any price increases. UMP and Sappi are also close competitors in the market for speciality paper. The Commission will examine whether competition in these markets will be restricted and whether any coordination is possible. Finally, UPM would remain active in the market for self-adhesive labels, where speciality paper is an essential input. The Commission will examine whether there is an incentive to restrict competitors’ access to single-sided coated base material for self-adhesive labels.

 

JD.com / CECONOMY

On 28 May 2026, the European Commission (“Commission”) announced that it was launching a second-phase investigation into foreign subsidies received by JD.com and their impact on the acquisition of German retail company CECONOMY. The Commission has preliminary concerns that favourable financing, tax incentives and subsidies from the Chinese government have enabled JD.com to offer a higher price during the acquisition process and could give the merging parties a competitive advantage in the internal market. This marks the Commission’s third in-depth FSR investigation since the FSR came into force in July 2023.

back to top

Meta: General Court upholds designation of Facebook Messenger as core platform service, but finds lack of reasoning regarding Marketplace

General Court of the European Union, judgment of 3 June 2026

In June 2026, the General Court ruled on Meta’s appeal against its designation as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). On 5 September 2023, the Commission designated Meta as a gatekeeper for, amongst other things, Messenger (as a number-independent interpersonal communications service (“NI-ICS”)) and Marketplace (as an online intermediation service). Meta contested both designations.

As regards Messenger, Meta argues that the service is an integrated chat function of Facebook and therefore not a separate core platform service (“CPS”) of the NI-ICS type. In its judgment of 3 June 2026, the General Court did not accept this argument. The decisive factor is that Meta has developed standalone mobile applications for Messenger and that Messenger can be used with a deactivated Facebook account. Furthermore, Meta provides specific software functions to business users (such as ‘click-to-message’ and a paid messaging service) and in its communications to investors and users, Meta explicitly positioned Messenger as an independent platform with its own revenue model. The fact that there is a certain degree of overlap between active users of Messenger and Facebook does not detract from its status as a separate CPS (Article 3(9) of the DMA).

With regard to the quantitative criteria (Article 3(2) of the DMA), the General Court held that the Commission was correct to take into account all active users who use Messenger at least once a month (regardless of whether they are also active on Facebook). Meta’s attempt to rebut the presumption based on the quantitative criteria (Article 3(5) of the DMA) failed due to the high standard of proof. The arguments put forward by Meta – a limited B2C share, multi-homing behaviour, and the C2C nature of Messenger – had no “direct link to the quantitative criteria”. They were also insufficiently substantiated and do not preclude classification as a CPS, according to the General Court.

As regards Marketplace, Meta argued that the Commission had failed to take into account material changes that had been implemented prior to the adoption of the decision. The General Court emphasises that, whilst the quantitative thresholds do indeed require a retrospective examination covering the last three financial years, this does not apply to the question whether a service qualifies as CPS. The Commission failed to recognise this, according to the General Court.

Crucial to the case were the changes introduced by Meta on 31 July 2023, limiting the maximum number of advertisements per user per month to 20 for ‘items’ and 5 for ‘vehicles and property’. These numbers are lower than the threshold above which the Commission classified a user as a ‘power seller’ – an indicator of business users. Although Meta had informed the Commission of this in time, the Commission nevertheless maintained that such users could qualify as business users. This contradiction led the General Court to annul this part of the designation decision on the grounds of a lack of reasoning. Incidentally, the Commission had already withdrawn Meta’s designation in 2025 because Meta had sufficiently demonstrated that the threshold of 10,000 business users had not been reached in 2024.

back to top

Commission imposes interim measures on Meta to ensure free access to AI assistants on WhatsApp

European Commission, decision of 9 June 2026

The Commission has imposed interim measures on Meta. The interim measures require Meta, until the end of the ongoing investigation, to restore access for competing general-purpose AI assistants to WhatsApp via the WhatsApp for Business API, under the conditions that applied prior to 15 October 2025. In particular, this means that free and unrestricted access to WhatsApp must be restored. In doing so, the Commission aims to prevent serious and irreparable harm to competition in the rapidly growing market for general-purpose AI assistants, whilst new entrants are still able to exert competitive pressure.

According to the Commission, Meta, through WhatsApp, has, at first sight, held a dominant position on the EEA market for consumer communication applications since at least January 2023 and is likely to be abusing that position by refusing access to the infrastructure developed for third parties. The Commission also regards granting access in return for payment as equivalent to this refusal of access.

As early as December 2025, the Commission launched its investigation into a possible breach of Article 102 TFEU by Meta, after the tech company excluded third-party AI assistants from its API, leaving only Meta AI available via WhatsApp. This was followed in February 2026 by a statement of objections containing the preliminary conclusion that measures might be necessary, and in April 2026 by supplementary objections setting out the intention to order Meta to readmit third parties. With this decision of June 2026, these provisional measures have now been effectively implemented. Meta must comply with the measures within five working days. The substantive investigation is continuing in the meantime.

back to top

General Court clarifies that turnover of insolvent subsidiary must be included in fine calculation

General Court of the European Union, judgment of 6 May 2026

On 6 May 2026, the General Court dismissed the appeal brought by Westfälisches Textilwerk Adolf Ahlers Stiftung & Co. KG (“Ahlers Stiftung”) against the fine imposed on it. In November 2024, the Commission found that the Ahlers group and several Pierre Cardin companies had infringed the prohibition on cartels during the period 2008–2021. A fine of €3.5 million was imposed on the parent company, Ahlers Stiftung, with a reduction of approximately 66% applied on account of limited ability to pay. A complicating factor was that its subsidiary, Ahlers AG, had been declared insolvent in April 2023 and its business operations had been transferred to a third party on 15 July 2023.

Ahlers argues that, in these circumstances, the fine ceiling should be calculated on the basis of the economic unit as it existed at the time the fine decision was imposed. Since, Ahlers AG was no longer part of the same economic unit as the parent company at the time the decision was adopted in November 2024, the Commission should have based the ceiling solely on the turnover of Ahlers Stiftung itself. However, the Commission used the consolidated turnover, including the turnover of Ahlers AG up to 15 July 2023.

The General Court considers that the 10% fine ceiling is intended to prevent excessive fines, but must reflect the actual economic capacity of the infringer during the period of the infringement. Until 15 July 2023, Ahlers AG was a wholly-owned subsidiary over which Ahlers Stiftung exercised decisive influence. The consolidated annual accounts therefore reflected the economic reality of the undertaking during the infringement. The effectiveness of competition law would be seriously undermined if undertakings were able to substantially reduce the fine cap by transferring activities to third parties prior to the decision, according to the General Court.

back to top

No-poach agreement in Portuguese professional football during COVID-19 does not constitute restriction of trade under Article 101 TFEU

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 30 April 2026

On 30 April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) answered preliminary questions from the Portuguese competition court concerning a non-poaching agreement concluded between professional football clubs and the Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (“LPFP”) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The central question was whether this agreement constituted a restriction by object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

On 7 and 8 April 2020, shortly after the indefinite suspension of the 2019/2020 football season, all top-tier and most second-tier clubs agreed not to sign players who had unilaterally terminated their employment contracts due to the pandemic or resulting exceptional decisions – in particular the extension of the season. The Portuguese competition authority classified this as a restriction by object and imposed a fine. The clubs lodged an appeal, following which the court referred questions for a preliminary ruling.

The CJEU confirms that non-recruitment agreements in the labour market for players fall, in principle, within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and have the characteristics of a restriction by object. Nevertheless, the CJEU ruled that, in this case, it is open to the referring court, following a specific assessment of the content, the competition objectives and the economic and legal context, to conclude that there is no restriction by object. The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, such as the uncertainty surrounding the resumption of the season, the threat of mass contract terminations and the risk of a fundamental disruption to sporting integrity, lend the agreement an ambivalent character. In addition to a competition-restricting purpose, it also pursued an objective that promotes competition, namely maintaining squad stability for the sake of a tournament system characterised by integrity.

Should the court rule that the non-recruitment agreement does not constitute a restriction by object but rather a restriction by effect, it must then assess whether the agreement is justified under the Wouters/Meca-Medina doctrine: the agreement must then pursue a legitimate objective of public interest and be suitable, necessary and proportionate to that objective.

back to top

European Commission sends statements of objections to companies in artificial turf sector

European Commission, press release of 21 May 2026

On 21 May 2026, the Commission announced that it had sent statements of objections to a number of companies in the artificial turf sector, on suspicion of cartel activity in the market for artificial turf for sports pitches in the Netherlands and Germany. These are treated as two separate cases under Article 101 TFEU.

The suspected Dutch cartel centres on the recycling company GBN-AGR, which was established in 2019 by Oranjewoud, TenCate Grass and the Belgian Sports & Leisure Group. The Commission suspects that the companies involved agreed to use only GBN-AGR’s recycling services, not to compete with this company, and to set prices in such a way as to avoid competition amongst themselves and to disadvantage third parties. The aim was to secure a dominant position for GBN-AGR in the recycling market whilst at the same time consolidating their own strong position in the related markets for the installation and supply of artificial turf, according to the Commission.

With regard to the German market, the Commission suspects that Oranjewoud and the German Sport Group exchanged strategic and confidential information on prices and production capacity between 2020 and 2023, and furthermore set a joint ‘gate fee’ for artificial turf recycling – all as part of cooperation discussions that ultimately did not lead to a deal. The parties concerned are now being given the opportunity to respond to the objections.

back to top

CBb once again grants interim relief in favour of MaaS providers regarding HRN concession

Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal, ruling of 1 June 2026

On 1 June 2026, the CBb issued an interim ruling granting an interim order in a dispute between various MaaS (‘Mobility as a Service’) providers and the State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management regarding the award of the Main Rail Network concession (“HRN concession”) to Nederlandse Spoorwegen (“NS”). This judgment follows on an earlier interim ruling of 30 June 2025. In that earlier interim ruling, the CBb held that the HRN concession violates Article 106 TFEU and Article 102 TFEU. The CBb considered there to be a real risk that NS could use its dominant position in the market for public passenger transport by rail on the HRN to restrict competition in the MaaS market, whilst NS itself is also active in that MaaS market.

Then, the CBb instructed the State Secretary to amend the concession. NS’s wholesale offering to MaaS providers had to be transparent, non-discriminatory and competitive, and ensure a level playing field. It was also necessary to clearly set out the method used to calculate the reference offer and the compensation for distribution costs – the costs that NS saves when a MaaS provider performs a sales or distribution service instead of NS itself – so that MaaS providers can ‘match’ NS’s offer.

To comply with that judgment, the State Secretary issued a new decision in October 2025. The MaaS providers claim that this decision still falls short: NS could continue to squeeze their margins and the State Secretary interpreted the distribution cost compensation too narrowly.

The CBb is not yet convinced that the system opted for by the State Secretary sufficiently mitigates the competition law risk, and considers further market investigation necessary. The CBb points out that the MaaS market has for some time been characterised (structurally) by a (virtual) monopoly of NS and that insufficient investigation has been carried out into why competition has failed to take off in that market. Without further information, it is conceivable that the new decision could actually worsen the position of MaaS providers.

Therefore, as a provisional measure, the CBb is extending the agreements made between NS and MaaS providers from 1 January 2026 and suspending the relevant parts of the new decision in that respect. The CBb itself increases the distribution cost compensation by 1.5 percentage points. The provisional measure applies from 1 June 2026 to 1 January 2027.

back to top

Court dismisses Red Bull’s appeal regarding compensation for costs incurred during

General Court of the European Union, judgment of 22 April 2026

On 22 April 2026, the General Court dismissed the appeal brought by Red Bull GmbH and its subsidiaries Red Bull France SASU and Red Bull Nederland BV. At its core, the case centred on whether the Commission was obliged to reimburse the legal fees incurred by Red Bull as a result of the continuation of a competition inspection at the Commission’s offices in Brussels.

In March 2023, the Commission had carried out an inspection at Red Bull’s business premises in Fuschl am See, Paris and Amsterdam pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003. At the end of that inspection, the Commission announced that it would continue the inspection at its own offices in Brussels, which it subsequently did from June to September 2023. Red Bull then requested reimbursement of the additional costs, including travel and accommodation expenses and the full legal fees.

The Commission refused to reimburse the lawyers’ fees. It argued that these costs did not constitute additional costs arising exclusively from the continuation of the inspection at its offices, as Red Bull had also been continuously assisted by lawyers during the inspection at its own business premises. The costs would therefore have been incurred in any event.

The General Court endorses this view. For reimbursement to be granted, the costs must be ‘additional’, that is to say, they must be in addition to the costs that would have been incurred had the on-site inspection continued, and they must result ‘exclusively’ from the continuation of the inspection in Brussels. That exclusive causal link was lacking in this case. Red Bull had been assisted by lawyers throughout the entire original inspection and had, moreover, itself acknowledged that it would have engaged lawyers even if the inspection had continued on its own premises.

back to top

ACM rejects SK Company’s request for enforcement: Jura’s selective distribution system does not contravene competition law

Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, decision of 19 March 2026

On 19 March 2026, the ACM rejected the request for enforcement that was filed by SK Company B.V. (“SK”). SK had asked the ACM to take action against Jura Nederland B.V. (“Jura NL”) and bol.com B.V. (“bol”) on the grounds of alleged infringements of the prohibition on abuse of dominance and the cartel prohibition. Following an initial preliminary investigation, the ACM concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a breach of the Competition Act (Mededingingswet) or the TFEU.

SK is active in the sale of Jura coffee machines in the Netherlands, sourced from an authorised German distributor, but is not part of Jura NL’s selective distribution system. In mid-2025, bol prohibited unauthorised distributors from continuing to sell on its platform, after which SK was no longer able to offer Jura machines via bol as of 30 September 2025. SK subsequently lodged a complaint regarding three alleged infringements: (i) an unlawful selective distribution system, (ii) procurement barriers and misuse of copyrighted visual material, and (iii) an agreement between Jura NL and bol to exclude unauthorised distributors from the platform.

The ACM has rejected all three complaints. Jura NL’s selective distribution system, as a qualitative system, meets the Metro criteria and, given that Jura NL’s market share is well below 30 per cent and the absence of hardcore restrictions, is eligible for the European Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. Nor has there been any evidence of a dominant position on the part of either Jura NL or bol. Furthermore, Jura NL’s responses show that there are more than 400 authorised distributors operating in the Netherlands, some of whom also sell online. According to the ACM, this constitutes sufficient evidence of competition both within the brand and between brands. The ACM therefore rejects the enforcement request.

back to top

Amsterdam Court of Appeal and Supreme Court rule on long-running dispute between 123inkt and HP: no dominant position, but unfair competition through comparative advertising

Amsterdam Court of Appeal, judgment of 19 November 2024 (published on 22 April 2026)
and
Supreme Court, judgment of 5 June 2026

In addition to the long-running distribution dispute (see also CF Q1 2026) between printer supplier HP and cartridge supplier Digital Revolution (known as “123inkt”), a judgment has been published after almost a year and a half concerning a possible abuse of a dominant position by HP and certain commercial practices under consumer law.

In these civil proceedings, 123inkt complained about the ‘dynamic security’ feature that HP has built into its printer software, which prevents a cartridge with a non-HP chip from communicating with (certain models of) HP printers. According to 123inkt, HP does this solely for the purpose of excluding other cartridges, which constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. 123inkt has sought to counter this by advising its customers not to update their printers.

The Court of Appeal, like the District Court, considers that there is insufficient factual evidence to support the claim that the cartridges for each model of HP printer constitute a separate product market (in which HP would hold a dominant position). In the Court’s view, printers form part of a system market based on the so-called EFIM test (which is used to assess a possible dominant position in aftermarkets). According to the Court, it is plausible that buyers take the total costs of printers and cartridges into account when choosing between different printer manufacturers. Furthermore, HP argued that ‘dynamic security’ serves a legitimate aim, namely combating counterfeit cartridges.

The Court then addressed the issue of unfair competition arising from unfair comparative advertising by both parties. With regard to HP, the Court ruled that HP wrongly claims superiority over non-HP cartridges and ordered HP to rectify this on its website. With regard to 123inkt, the Court ruled that 123inkt may no longer state that HP Instant Ink is more expensive. 123inkt is also prohibited from calling customers to switch their orders from HP cartridges to its own cartridges.

On 5 June 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the cassation appeals brought by 123inkt and HP. 123inkt argued, unsuccessfully, that the burden of assertion and proof resting on it with regard to the market definition is contrary to the EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness. The Supreme Court did not agree with this and saw no reason to refer questions for a preliminary ruling on this matter, having regard to the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States.

However, HP’s incidental appeal, in which it complains that the Court of Appeal failed to assess the substantiation for its superiority claim on the basis of the devolutive effect of appeal, is upheld. To that extent, the Supreme Court quashes the judgment and refers the case back to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

back to top

Supreme Court rules that competition law infringement by subsidiary does not automatically constitute an unlawful act against parent company

Supreme Court, judgment of 10 May 2026

On 10 April 2026, the Supreme Court (“HR”) delivered its judgment in a case in which the parent company had paid a competition fine and sought to recover that amount from the subsidiary that had actually committed the infringing acts. The case concerned the investment company Bencis Capital Partners B.V. (“Bencis”), which held indirect shares in the flour manufacturer Meneba B.V. (“Meneba”), now part of the Dossche group. The Netherlands Competition Authority (Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, the legal predecessor of the ACM) imposed a fine of €9 million on Meneba for participating in a cartel in the flour sector. Subsequently, the ACM also imposed a fine of just over €1.27 million on Bencis, on the grounds that, during the period from 26 November 2004 to 16 March 2007, Bencis exercised decisive influence over Meneba and thus formed a single undertaking with it within the meaning of competition law during that period. Bencis argued that the infringement had been concealed from it and, in civil proceedings, sought a declaration that Dossche (Meneba) had acted unlawfully towards it, as well as payment of the fine imposed on it.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether a subsidiary that infringes competition law thereby also acts unlawfully towards the parent company to which the fine is attributed as part of the same ‘undertaking’.

The Supreme Court first held that the allocation of liability for a competition fine within an undertaking is a matter of national law, albeit subject to the general principles of EU law. Under Dutch law, the starting point is that an infringement of competition law by a subsidiary is not automatically unlawful vis-à-vis its parent company – even if that parent company was unaware of the infringement. Additional circumstances may lead to a different conclusion, in particular where the subsidiary has deliberately misled the parent company or kept it in the dark regarding the infringement.

In this case, following the presentation of evidence, the District Court of Rotterdam had ruled that Bencis had failed to demonstrate sufficiently that, prior to the takeover, it had specifically enquired about breaches of competition law, that Meneba had expressly reassured it in this regard, and that this had been confirmed annually. The Court of Appeal in The Hague upheld this ruling. The Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s judgment: Bencis did not raise a sufficiently clear ground of appeal against the District Court’s findings of fact, and the mere assertion that Meneba had concealed the infringement from it was rejected as insufficiently specific. Consequently, there were no additional circumstances required to render Meneba’s infringement unlawful vis-à-vis Bencis.

back to top

Dutch court has jurisdiction over damages claim against Heineken for dominance abuse in Greek beer market

Supreme Court, judgment of 29 May 2026

On 29 May 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch courts have jurisdiction to hear a claim for damages against Heineken N.V. (“Heineken”) and its Greek subsidiary Athenian Brewery S.A. (“AB”) on the grounds of alleged abuse of a dominant position in the Greek beer market. The claimant is Macedonian Thrace Brewery S.A. (“MTB”), a Greek brewer which alleges that it has suffered loss as a result of anti-competitive conduct by AB.

The key issue in this case was whether the Dutch court – as the court of the place where the parent company Heineken’s business is situated – also had jurisdiction over its Greek subsidiary AB, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation. Heineken contested this, arguing that the mere assertion that the parent company and the subsidiary constitute a single undertaking for the purposes of competition law is insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and that the Court of Appeal had not adequately addressed their substantiated challenge to the existence of decisive influence.

The Supreme Court had previously referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, which gave its answer on 13 February 2025. The CJEU ruled that the court of the parent company’s registered office may, when assessing jurisdiction, rely on the presumption of decisive influence under competition law, provided that the defendants retain the opportunity to rebut that presumption with conclusive evidence.

Following the CJEU’s ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in cassation brought by Heineken and others. The court is not required to conduct an extensive examination of the evidence during the jurisdiction phase; it is sufficient to ascertain whether decisive influence by the parent company over the subsidiary is not ruled out from the outset. Since Heineken is virtually 100% the (great)-grandparent company of AB, and since the granting of the claims against Heineken cannot be regarded as precluded from the outset, the jurisdiction of the Dutch court has been correctly established.

back to top

CJEU expands scope of national courts’ jurisdiction under ‘anchor defendant’ rule

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 16 April 2026

On 16 April 2026, the CJEU delivered its judgment in the joined cases concerning the power cable cartel and the cardboard cartel. Both cases were referred to the CJEU by way of a (simultaneous) preliminary referral by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. In short, the CJEU was asked when a national court may assume jurisdiction in cases involving multiple defendants on the basis of the ‘anchor defendant’ rule (Article 8(1) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation, Article 7(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure or Article 6(1) of the Lugano Convention). For this to apply, there must be a ‘close connection’ between the claims against the main defendant and those against the other defendants.

In both cases, the claimants sought damages for infringements of Article 101 TFEU which had been established by the Commission (power cables) and the Italian competition authority (cardboard) respectively. The jurisdiction of the Dutch court was based on the presence of a Dutch ‘anchor defendant’ which was not itself an addressee of the infringement decision. The claimants’ reasoning is that the Dutch entities form part of the same undertaking as the cartel participants on whom fines were imposed and that, on that basis, that Dutch entity is (also) jointly and severally liable for the alleged damage (following the Sumal judgment of the CJEU). This establishes the close connection, according to the claimants in these cases.

The CJEU reiterates and emphasises its previous case law on the concept of an undertaking and the relationship thereof to the assessment of jurisdiction by national courts. The concept of an undertaking is functional: the economic unit constituting the undertaking is determined on the basis of the subject matter of the infringing conduct. A parent company may therefore form part of several economic units, depending on its economic activity and that of the subsidiary entities in question. Furthermore, the concept of an undertaking entails joint and several liability on the part of all the entities comprising the economic unit, regardless of which entity is identified as the infringer.

The CJEU subsequently stresses that, for the sake of legal certainty, jurisdiction must be determined without any substantive assessment of the merits of the claims. In the judgment, the CJEU expressly reiterates that foreseeability is not an stand-alone or separate criterion under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation, as already held in the AB and Heineken/MTB judgment.

The CJEU concludes that the rebuttable presumption of decisive influence (arising from the Akzo judgment) also applies in private enforcement, such as these cartel damages cases (in line with the Skanska judgment), and in particular already at the stage of determining jurisdiction. The CJEU holds that it suffices, for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction, that it cannot be ruled out that the defendants concerned form part of the same undertaking.

Furthermore, the CJEU concludes that holding companies – which merely hold shares – may also act as anchor defendants. The economic activities of a subsidiary may be attributed to a holding company where that subsidiary does not determine its market conduct independently, but primarily follows the instructions from its parent company. This is particularly the case where the subsidiary of the holding company over which that holding company exercises decisive influence (in light of the Akzo presumption) carries out an economic activity that has a concrete link to the subject matter of the infringement committed by the ‘grandmother company’. This is particularly the case where the subsidiary in question is responsible for the production, sale, supply or distribution of these cartelised products and for the provision of the cartelised services, according to the CJEU.

back to top

Amsterdam District Court assumes jurisdiction over claims on behalf of all Dutch consumers in WAMCA case against Apple*

Amsterdam District Court, judgment of 13 May 2026

On 13 May 2026, the Amsterdam District Court declared itself competent to rule on the collective claims brought by two foundations – Stichting Right to Consumer Justice (now: Stichting Consumer Justice) and Stichting App Stores Claims – against Apple. Both foundations are seeking damages from Apple on behalf of Dutch users of the Apple App Store. The foundations allege that Apple is (or has been) abusing its dominant position by, amongst other things, charging excessive commissions for paid apps and payments for in-app purchases.

The Amsterdam District Court was initially uncertain as to whether it could assume jurisdiction over all the claims, as not all the users whom the foundations claim to represent are domiciled within the Amsterdam District Court’s territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, preliminary questions were referred to the CJEU, which subsequently concluded that the Amsterdam District Court does indeed have jurisdiction to hear all the claims brought by the foundations, even if the users are not residing within the Amsterdam District Court’s territorial jurisdiction (see also our previous CF Q4 2025). In this judgment, the Amsterdam District Court follows this ruling of the CJEU and concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims on behalf of all users residing (or established) in the Netherlands who have made purchases on the App Store.

Another issue addressed in this judgment is the applicability of the collective action regime. The foundations argue that the WAMCA applies to all acts causing damage, including those that took place before 15 November 2016; Apple disputes this. The Amsterdam District Court has decided to stay the proceedings until the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter in two cassation proceedings already pending before it.

*bureau Brandeis represents Stichting Consumer Justice in these proceedings.

back to top

Amsterdam District Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on claims against foreign generic pharmaceutical companies

Amsterdam District Court, judgment of 1 April 2026

On 1 April 2026, the Amsterdam District Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by a group of healthcare purchasers against nine foreign generic drug manufacturers in a follow-on damages case concerning the heart medication perindopril. The healthcare purchasers have held Servier and a number of generic manufacturers – Teva, Krka, Lupin, Mylan and Niche/Unichem – liable for their involvement in so-called ‘pay-for-delay agreements’. In short, these agreements entail that the manufacturer of the medicine (the patent holder) pays compensation to generic medicine manufacturers who wish to produce and market the protected medicine, in exchange for which these generic manufacturers will not (for the time being) enter the market. These agreements had already been classified by the Commission in 2014 as cartel agreements in breach of Article 101 TFEU. The Commission also found that Servier had abused its dominant position in breach of Article 102 TFEU. This was subsequently broadly confirmed by the CJEU.

The healthcare purchasers argued that the District Court of Amsterdam has jurisdiction to rule on the claims against all defendants, as the Dutch entities of Servier and Teva act as anchor defendants. To this end, the healthcare purchasers argued that all the infringements established in the Commission’s infringement decision must be regarded collectively as a single and continuous infringement, in which all the defendants jointly participated. In view of the concept of an undertaking and joint and several liability for damages arising from cartel infringements, the Amsterdam District Court also has jurisdiction to rule on the claims against the foreign defendants, according to the healthcare purchasers.

The Amsterdam District Court disagrees. Regarding Servier, the court concluded that the Commission had in fact established not one but six separate infringements: one infringement of Article 102 TFEU by Servier itself and five separate ‘pay-for-delay’ agreements involving different defendants. There is, thus, no close link between the claims against the anchor defendants and those against the foreign defendants.

With regard to Teva, the court ruled that this entity was solely summoned to establish jurisdiction, thereby constituting an abuse of procedural law by the healthcare purchasers. The court therefore only assumes jurisdiction over the claims against the entities of Servier and Teva established in the Netherlands, and not against the foreign defendants.

back to top

Amsterdam District Court finds 7% overcharge in CDC Trucks cartel case

Amsterdam District Court, interim judgment of 15 April 2026

On 15 April 2026, the Amsterdam District Court handed down an interim judgment in the long-running follow-on damages proceedings brought by CDC Cartel Damage Claims (“CDC”) concerning the Trucks cartel. The court has set the overcharge percentage at 7% (an estimation of the difference between the price a buyer actually paid for a product or service and the price that would have existed in a competitive market), rejected the cartel members’ defence based on the limitation period, and reserved its decision on the passing-on defence for further consideration.

The case stems from the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2016, in which a number of truck manufacturers were fined for their participation in the so-called Trucks cartel: a long-standing infringement of Article 101 TFEU consisting of coordination on gross list prices and the timing of the introduction of emissions standards. CDC is claiming damages on behalf of its underlying parties (approximately 750 direct customers) for the additional costs they incurred as a result of the cartel – the overcharge.

Regarding the limitation period, the court ruled that the relative limitation period did not commence before 7 April 2017, the date on which the Commission published the summary of its decision. As the writ of summons is dated 13 July 2017 – well within the five-year period – the defendants’ argument fails. Their reliance on the absolute limitation period of twenty years neither succeeds: that period only begins to run after the end of the infringement (18 January 2011) and had by no means expired at the time of filing the writ of summons.

With regard to the overcharge percentage, the court takes the regression analysis carried out by CDC’s experts as its starting point and sets the percentage at 7%. The court rejects the truck manufacturers’ defence that the infringement essentially involved nothing more than an exchange of information on gross list prices. The ‘pass-on’ defence – i.e. the additional costs were passed on by the claimants to their customers – has not been sufficiently substantiated by the truck manufacturers but is not categorically rejected either; the debate on this matter will continue at a later stage in the proceedings.

back to top

Interest on cartel damages runs from date of payment for the product subject to cartel

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 30 April 2026

On 30 April 2026, the CJEU delivered its judgment in the case brought by Wenzel Logistics GmbH (“Wenzel”), an Austrian transport company, against the members of the above discussed Trucks cartel,  clarifying two important questions arising from Article 3(2) of Directive 2014/104/EU (the “Damages Directive”): (i) the temporal scope of national provisions implementing the right to full compensation, including interest, and (ii) the date from which interest begins to run in cartel damages cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.

Wenzel had purchased trucks from distributors of several cartel participants during the infringement period and brought an action for damages before the Austrian courts in January 2021, claiming approximately EUR 848,000 as compensation for the overcharge. The central dispute concerned interest. Wenzel argued that interest was payable from the date on which the harm occurred (i.e. the date of payment at inflated prices), while Mercedes-Benz Group maintained that, under the general rules of Austrian civil law applicable to this older harm, interest was only due from the date on which the action was notified. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court) referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU.

In the first question, the CJEU held that Article 3(2) of the Damages Directive codifies the pre-existing case law on Article 101(1) TFEU – as established in Manfredi and confirmed in Tráficos Manuel Ferrer – and is therefore not subject to the retroactivity ban in Article 22(1). A national provision restricting interest to harm arising after 26 December 2016 must be disapplied where the action was brought after the Directive’s entry into force on 26 December 2014, as it undermines the effet utile of Article 101(1) TFEU. On the second question, the CJEU confirmed that Member States retain discretion over the precise trigger date but must use the criterion that primarily marks when the injured party first began to suffer actual loss. In an overcharge case, that will in principle be the date on which the inflated price was paid – subject to verification by the referring court.

back to top

Amsterdam District Court rejects request for access to cartel information addressed to NatWest NV

Amsterdam District Court, judgment of 4 June 2026

On 4 June 2026, the Amsterdam District Court rejected the request for access submitted by Stichting FX Claims against NatWest Markets N.V. (“NatWest NV”). Stichting FX Claims has initiated three (pending) proceedings against NatWest NV, other entities within the NatWest group and other global banks, in which it is claiming damages on behalf of the underlying parties due to their involvement in the Forex cartels. In these cartels, information regarding foreign currencies (‘foreign exchange’ or ‘FX’) and their exchange rates was exchanged via chat rooms (called ‘Three Way Banana Split’, ‘Essex Express’ and ‘Sterling Lads’). A large number of banks were fined by the Commission in 2019 and 2021 for their involvement in these cartels.

Follow-on cartel damages claims have also been brought in the United States and the United Kingdom, including by Allianz. These proceedings involved the use of discovery and pre-trial disclosure (respectively). Pursuant to Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Stichting FX Claims is now requesting access to inter alia relevant evidence submitted in those Allianz proceedings, as well as to less redacted versions of the Commission infringement decisions, transcripts of chat conversations, internal reports and personal statements. The objective of this request for access is to assess the (amount of) damages in order to determine whether a potential fourth follow-on proceedings would be proportionate.

The court first notes that Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted and applied in the light of the Damages Directive and the case law of the CJEU on this matter. This means that, as regards the criterion of a ‘legal relationship to which the applicant is a party’, it is sufficient for the applicant to demonstrate that it is reasonable to assume that the conditions for liability (infringement, damage and causal link) have been met. Despite the low threshold for the granting of access, the court dismisses the application in its entirety.

Firstly, Stichting FX Claims failed to demonstrate sufficiently that it is acting on behalf of a specific group of injured parties. Consequently, the existence of a legal relationship between the underlying parties (the principals or mandators) and NatWest NV is not plausible. Stichting FX Claims submitted information relating only to one party, but this was too little and unverifiable to establish a plausible legal relationship. Secondly, according to the court, NatWest NV simply does not have the requested documents in its possession. It was not a party to the Allianz proceedings and cannot easily obtain those documents. Thirdly, the request is too broad and does not meet the requirement of subsidiarity; it is unclear why Stichting FX Claims was unable to request the documents from the parties actually involved in the Allianz proceedings. The request is therefore not eligible for granting.

back to top

District Court rules again on dispute in the dairy sector: LVLC loses case regarding disclosure and ACM update notice while ACM sees order subject to penalty payment annulled

Rotterdam District Court, judgments of 22 and 29 May 2026

On 22 May 2026, the Rotterdam District Court ruled on three disputes between the Leerdammer Collectief Suppliers’ Association (“LVLC”) on the one hand, and the ACM and Royal Leerdammer Lactalis (“Lactalis”) on the other. These cases follow a series of earlier decisions, enforcement requests and judgements concerning ZuivelNL, Lactalis and LVLC. You can read more about this in our previous CF Q4 2024, Q2 2025 and Q3 2025.

The first case concerns the question whether the ACM’s notification to Lactalis – stating that Lactalis has complied with the order subject to a penalty payment imposed on it – constitutes a decision within the meaning of Article 1:3 Awb. On 4 September 2024, the ACM imposed an order subject to a penalty payment on Lactalis, requiring Lactalis to draw up new terms and conditions of supply and submit them to its milk suppliers, subject to a penalty payment. This order was published on the ACM’s website. On 10 April 2025, an update was posted on the ACM’s website stating, in brief, that Lactalis had complied with the order. LVLC lodged an objection to this update; the ACM subsequently declared this objection inadmissible on the grounds that it did not constitute a decision. The court first held that penalty payments are forfeited automatically, by operation of law (Article 5:33 Awb). Since that is the case, the statement that no penalty payments have been forfeited does not have any legal effect, contrary to LVLC’s view. The statement in this regard is therefore not a decision. Furthermore, legal protection is available to any interested parties under Article 5:37 Awb – a route which has also been used by LVLC. The appeal in this case is therefore unfounded.

The second case concerns the question of whether the ACM was right to refuse the disclosure of information on the development of Lactalis’ new pricing system. On 7 April 2025, LVLC requested this information from the ACM under the Freedom of Information Act. The ACM rejected this request because it is permitted to use the documents obtained solely for its statutory duties (Article 7 of the Act establishing the ACM (“Iw”)) and because the disclosure of the documentation would be contrary to the purpose of supervising the Unfair Commercial Practices Act in the agricultural sector. The court also ruled against LVLC in this case: the ACM was entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information on the basis of the Iw. LVLC’s appeal on the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR) was to no avail. According to the court, this does not entail an independent right to disclosure of the requested documents.

Just one week later, on 29 May 2026, the Rotterdam District Court delivered a third ruling in the same dispute – this time on the merits of the order subject to a penalty payment itself. In three joined cases, the court held that the ACM was not authorised to impose the order on Lactalis on 4 September 2024, because Lactalis had not violated the prohibition on unilateral price changes in Article 2(1)(c) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Act in the agricultural sector. The court found that the monthly unilateral determination of the milk price by Lactalis was agreed upon in the supply agreement between Lactalis and its milk suppliers. Since this mechanism was part of the agreed terms, there was no unilateral modification of the supply agreement within the meaning of the provision. The court therefore revoked the order.

The court moreover rejected the ACM’s broader interpretation that Article 2(1)(c) also requires buyers to use a transparent and objective pricing mechanism. In reaching this conclusion, the court examined the UTP Directive, the CMO Regulation and the European Commission’s guidance letters, and found that none of these sources support the ACM’s reading. The court noted that, unlike certain other Member States, the Netherlands has not adopted stricter national measures requiring written contracts or specific pricing mechanisms for raw milk deliveries. As a result of the revocation, LVLC’s appeal against the ACM’s decision not to enforce penalty payments was declared inadmissible for lack of procedural interest.

back to top

Court concludes once again that ACM was justified in rejecting the enforcement request concerning Lactalis

Rotterdam District Court, judgment of 29 May 2026

On 29 May 2026, the Rotterdam District Court handed down its judgment in two other cases involving Lactalis and the suppliers’ association LVLC. The court ruled in favour of the ACM: it had been right to reject an enforcement request from the LVLC. This case concerns the commitments made by ZuivelNL, which the ACM declared binding on 17 October 2024, on the basis of which ZuivelNL amended its membership fee collection system in line with the Agricultural OHP Act. Due to these commitments, the ACM rejected the suppliers’ association’s enforcement request on grounds of priority. This dispute follows a series of earlier decisions, enforcement requests and rulings concerning ZuivelNL, Lactalis and LVLC. You can read more about this in our previous CF Q4 2024, Q2 2025 and Q3 2025.

In its appeal, the suppliers’ association complains that the ACM wrongly separated the complaint regarding ZuivelNL’s membership fee – which is collected by Lactalis from the suppliers’ association – from the other complaints in the enforcement request. This appeal is unsuccessful. The court found that the grounds of appeal did not contain a reasoned rebuttal of ACM’s positions. The suppliers’ association merely repeated its assertions that ACM should not have separated this complaint; this is insufficient, according to the court. Nor were any substantive grounds of appeal put forward against the findings that ACM had correctly applied its prioritisation policy. Finally, the suppliers’ association’s argument that the undertakings are improper because ZuivelNL is not authorised to charge costs at all is also incorrect. The court therefore declares the appeal unfounded.

back to top

CBb rules against AVR in case concerning alleged unlawful preferential treatment of municipal waste processor

Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal, ruling of 26 May 2026

On 26 May 2026, the CBb ruled that the ACM was entitled to reject the enforcement request of waste processor AVR on the basis of its prioritisation policy. In doing so, the CBb confirmed the earlier ruling of the District Court of Rotterdam.

In February 2022, AVR requested the ACM to take enforcement action against several municipalities that are shareholders of (competing) waste processor Twence. According to AVR, the municipalities violated the prohibition on preferential treatment under Article 25j Mw by awarding the waste processing contract to Twence without a tender process and by paying rates that exceeded market conditions. The ACM rejected this request on the basis of its prioritisation policy: further investigation would neither be efficient nor effective.

The CBb has now confirmed that the ACM was right to reject the enforcement request. With regard to efficiency, the CBb agrees with the ACM’s argument that a further investigation into whether the tariffs are in line with market conditions would require specialist knowledge and capacity that are in short supply, and which could not then be used for other cases. Furthermore, the CBb concludes, in line with the District Court of Rotterdam, that it is plausible that the European State aid rules apply, meaning that not the ACM but rather the Commission is the appropriate body to conduct an investigation, if any. For this reason too, the ACM was entitled to reject the enforcement request. The CBb upholds the District Court’s ruling.

back to top

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

Bas Braeken – Jade Versteeg – Timo Hieselaar – Demi van den Berg – Joost van Belois – Lisanne Kooijman

Related articles
To
top