Unlock the Editor’s Digest without cost
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite tales on this weekly publication.
A Dutch court docket has discovered that Heineken is responsible for competitors violations dedicated by its Greek subsidiary way back to the Nineteen Nineties, probably leaving the brewer open to a whole lot of thousands and thousands of euros in fines.
The judgment, made by the Amsterdam District Court docket on Wednesday, discovered that the Dutch brewer was collectively liable, alongside Athenian Brewery, for “abuse of dominant place”.
The long-running saga started nearly a decade in the past when, after a prolonged investigation and quite a few raids of its workplaces, Greece’s competitors regulator in 2015 introduced it had fined Athenian Brewery €31.5mn for anti-competitive behaviour out there between 1998 and 2014.
The Hellenic Competitors Fee (HCC) mentioned Athenian Brewery “sought to exclude its opponents [from bars, restaurants and hotels] and to restrict their progress potentialities, over a interval of fifteen years”. In 2017 the Administrative Appeals Court docket in Athens upheld the choice, however lowered the unique high quality to €26.7mn.
Two follow-on instances looking for damages have been subsequently filed within the Dutch court docket by Heineken’s opponents, one introduced by smaller competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB) and one other by an unnamed claimant.
Heineken, which recorded contingencies of €478mn for these instances in its 2023 annual report, confirmed to the Monetary Instances that the second follow-up declare had been introduced by the Greek subsidiary of its rival Carlsberg, Olympic Brewery.
Heineken’s Athenian Brewery, which sells Alfa, Amstel and Heineken in Greece, holds a 50 per cent market share of the Greek beer market. Carlsberg, which brews Repair and Mythos, holds 31 per cent, whereas MTB, the brewer of Vergina beer, has 5 per cent.
The following steps of the litigation will decide whether or not MTB suffered damages, and the extent of the legal responsibility. MTB, which first filed its declare in 2017, is looking for compensation of no less than €162mn from Heineken and Athenian Brewery, in line with the court docket submitting.
Carlsberg, which has not disclosed particulars of its declare, mentioned: “We will verify that we have now a pending declare associated to a contest case in Greece. We’ve famous the court docket’s resolution on Wednesday, nonetheless there isn’t a fast impression on our declare at this level.”
Demetri Chriss, director of enterprise improvement at MTB, mentioned the judgment was a “victory for all of Europe’s impartial brewers which have discovered themselves on the receiving finish of abuses perpetrated by multinational behemoths with opaque company buildings”.
A spokesperson for Heineken instructed the FT the judgment was a “technical authorized resolution”.
“Damages, if any, shall be decided and would solely be payable after a call on the substantive deserves of the case,” they mentioned, including, “it isn’t attainable to estimate the result of those claims with any diploma of certainty.”
Heineken, which has till December 4 to file an announcement of reply, has beforehand argued that it shouldn’t face litigation for damages within the Netherlands to compensate for violations of antitrust guidelines by its subsidiary. Nonetheless, the judgment concluded that Heineken workout routines “decisive affect” over the subsidiary and is subsequently collectively liable.
Heineken not directly holds 98.8 per cent of Athenian Brewery’s shares by way of its subsidiary Heineken Worldwide BV. Heineken had management over its board of administrators and is liable for appointing its managing director, the judgment identified.
“The court docket involves the conclusion that Heineken and AB (Athenian Brewery) are certainly a part of the identical financial unit and subsequently the identical endeavor throughout the which means of competitors legislation,” the judgment learn. “In consequence, Heineken is held collectively responsible for the abuse of dominance already discovered in opposition to AB by the Greek authorities.”
