Introduction
A new chapter has opened in the long-running dispute between the Macedonia Thrace Brewery (“MTB”), a Greek brewer known for its “Vergina” brand, and Europe’s largest brewer, Heineken N.V. (“Heineken”), and its Greek subsidiary, Athenian Brewery S.A. (“AB”). On 18 February 2026, the Amsterdam District Court issued its interim judgment, accepting the methodology put forward by MTB with respect to the quantification of its damages. In particular, the Court ruled that the damages suffered by MTB amount to at least EUR 43 million.
The case stems from the decision of the Hellenic Competition Commission (“HCC”), published on 19 September 2014, in which it found that AB had abused its dominant position on the Greek beer market from 1998 to 2014[1].
HCC’s 2014 decision
The HCC found that AB had implemented, over a prolonged period, a single, targeted and continuous exclusionary strategy aimed at foreclosing competitors and limiting their growth opportunities. The strategy combined the imposition of exclusivity at the wholesale and retail levels, and other practices, whose cumulative effect was to restrict competition across the relevant distribution channels. These included the imposition of exclusivity clauses or the restriction of supply from competing brewers, as well as preferential credit terms offered to wholesalers in exchange for limiting their dealings with rivals.
In particular, the HCC’s decision structured its findings around three distinct pillars of abusive practices:
- On-trade consumption: AB imposed exclusivity and related practices across key on-trade accounts and other points of sale, including exclusive supply obligations, financial incentives conditional upon exclusivity, and punitive behavior or threats[2]. According to the HCC, these practices affected a substantial portion of the market. Approximately 78% of the fast-food facilities examined nationwide were found to operate under explicit or de facto exclusivity arrangements with AB[3]. The HCC concluded that such arrangements were intended, whether viewed individually or as a whole, to impose essential or de facto exclusivity on the point of sale, to bind a substantial part of demand, excluding competitors from key distribution channels, and to limit their development prospects. The HCC also identified the granting of ex ante payments or other financial benefits to certain on-trade outlets, presented as compensation for promotional or advertising activities[4]. These arrangements were considered capable of reinforcing exclusive relationships and limiting the ability of competing brewers to supply those outlets.
- Retail level: AB applied conditional discounts and a “shelf-space” clause for its products[5]. Under these arrangements, supermarket partners were required to maintain a “satisfactory” share of shelf space for AB products in order to qualify for additional discounts, calculated as a percentage of their turnover in AB products[6]. The HCC considered that this mechanism has created strong incentives for retailers to prioritize AB products over competing brands, thereby limiting opportunities for competing brewers to obtain adequate shelf space[7].
- Wholesale Level: AB used credit policy, including credit terms (lowering the credit limit and/or accelerating payment dates), as a means of intimidating wholesalers into excluding competing beers[8]. According to the HCC, AB applied different commercial conditions depending on the degree of commitment shown by wholesalers[9]. The HCC also noted that granting privileged credit terms for stocking purposes could restrict the normal development of competition where such advantages were not justified by objective economic consideration[10]. As a result, wholesalers’ freedom of choice concerning their sources of supply could be limited, thereby blocking the access of other competing suppliers to the market[11].
Overall, ΑΒ was found to have violated Article 102 TFEU and Article 2 of Law 703/1977 (now reflected in Law 3959/2011). Moreover, HCC imposed a total fine of EUR 31.451.211, applying the statutory 10% cap on AB’s 2013 turnover. Τhe Court of Appeal partially upheld the HCC’s decision but adjusted the applicable cap to 8.5% of AB’s 2013 turnover for fine-calculation purposes, reducing the fine to EUR 26.733.529,18.
Jurisdiction of the Dutch Court and Heineken’s Joint and Severe Liability
Following the HCC’s decision, MTB brought proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court, seeking AB and Heineken to be held jointly and severally liable for the above infringement. Notably, even though MTB had asked HCC to include Heineken in its investigation, HCC concluded that there was no evidence of Heineken’s direct participation in the infringements, nor had Heineken exercised decisive influence over AB[12]. Moreover, jurisdiction was challenged, as previous case law did not clearly establish whether a claimant could rely on a national decision adopted in one Member State to bring proceedings against a defendant before the Court of another Member State.
In that regard, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands submitted preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”)[13]. In its interim judgment of 23 October 2024, the Amsterdam District Court held that there was no need to await the CJEU’s ruling and that Heineken has a decisive influence over AB, thus, is jointly and severally liable with AB for the damage suffered by MTB[14].
On 13 February 2025, the CJEU delivered its ruling, clarifying that the notion of undertaking and, through it, that of economic unit entails joint and several liability among entities forming the economic unit at the time of the infringement[15]. The absence of joint and several liability in a final European Commission or national decision does not preclude reliance on Article 8 (1) of Regulation No 1215/2012[16]. Where a parent company holds all or almost all of a subsidiary’s capital, it is presumed, subject to rebuttal, that the parent exercises decisive influence over that subsidiary[17]. In determining international jurisdiction, courts consider only connecting factors[18], and national courts may rely solely on the presumption if it is substantiated by the claimant and not effectively rebutted by the defendant[19].
In terms of next steps, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on the jurisdictional appeal is expected later this month. After this, the Amsterdam District Court will render its final judgment on damages.
Conclusion
The MTB v Heineken case constitutes a notable development in European competition law and private enforcement practice. It illustrates how findings of abuse of dominance by a national competition authority may extend well beyond the administrative enforcement stage and give rise to significant follow-on damages claims before the courts of other Member States.
In the brewing sector in particular, the dispute serves as a reminder that administrative fines rarely represent the final financial exposure for companies involved in competition law infringements. Instead, such decisions increasingly operate as a foundation for private enforcement actions, enabling claimants to seek compensation for harm allegedly suffered as a result of exclusionary conduct.
At the same time, the case raises important legal questions regarding the scope of parental liability and the procedural coordination of cross-border competition litigation. The forthcoming final decisions of the Dutch courts — especially in relation to the quantification of damages and the application of the single economic unit doctrine — may therefore have wider implications for the future development of competition damages litigation across the EU.
[1] HCC Decision No 590/2014 of 19 September 2014.
[2] HCC decision, ibid., paras. 329 and 338 – 696.
[3] HCC decision, ibid., para. 351.
[4] HCC decision, ibid., para. 768.
[5] HCC decision, ibid., paras. 331 and 1123 – 1152.
[6] HCC decision, ibid., para. 1134.
[7] HCC decision, ibid., paras. 1134 – 35.
[8] HCC decision, ibid., para. 331 and 1341 – 1471.
[9] HCC decision, ibid., para. 1341.
[10] Ibid.
[11] HCC decision, ibid., para. 1381.
[12] HCC Decision, ibid., para. 89.
[13] Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) of 28 June 2023, CJEU, Case – 393/23, Judgment of 13 February 2025.
[14] Amsterdam District Court, Judgment of 25 October 2024, para. 2.6 (i).
[15] CJEU, Case – 393/23, ibid., para 29.
[16] CJEU, Case – 393/23, ibid., para 30.
[17] CJEU, Case – 393/23, ibid., para 37.
[18] CJEU, Case – 393/23, ibid., para 41.
[19] CJEU, Case – 393/23, ibid., para 46.
