The long-running legal battle between Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB), the producer of Greece’s well-known Vergina beer, and brewing giant Heineken and its Greek subsidiary Athenian Brewery has reached a significant new milestone. On 18 February, the Amsterdam District Court issued an interim judgment addressing the quantification of damages in MTB’s private enforcement claim. The ruling marks another decisive development in a case rooted in findings of competition law violations in the Greek beer market.
Background to the Dispute
The proceedings stem from a landmark 2015 decision by the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC), published in December of that year. The HCC concluded that Athenian Brewery had abused its dominant position in the Greek beer market for a period of at least 16 years. According to the authority, the conduct involved systematic exclusionary practices that hindered competitors, including MTB, from effectively competing in the marketplace.
The HCC’s decision followed an extensive investigation into practices that allegedly restricted market access and distorted competition. Athenian Brewery challenged the ruling through administrative appeals in Greece, but the company was unsuccessful at every level. Greek courts consistently upheld the competition authority’s findings, reinforcing the conclusion that the abuse of dominance had taken place over a prolonged period.
Dutch Court Proceedings
Parallel to the Greek administrative proceedings, MTB initiated a private damages action in the Netherlands against both Heineken and Athenian Brewery. Earlier in the Dutch case, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it was bound by the findings of the Hellenic Competition Commission. This meant that the existence of the infringement itself was no longer in dispute before the Dutch court. Additionally, the court determined that Heineken and Athenian Brewery were jointly and severally liable for the harm caused by the competition law violations.
The recent interim judgment focuses specifically on the quantification of damages. MTB relied on an economic model developed by its expert, Oxera, to calculate the financial harm suffered as a result of the anti-competitive conduct. Heineken, supported by its own expert from CRA, raised several objections to the methodology and underlying assumptions of MTB’s damages model.
However, the Amsterdam District Court rejected the key defenses advanced by Heineken and its expert. The court endorsed Oxera’s approach, citing in detail the reasoning and factual findings of the Hellenic Competition Commission regarding the nature and scope of the abuse. By grounding its analysis in the established infringement decision, the court concluded that the methodology presented by MTB provided a credible basis for assessing losses.
Damages Assessment
Based on its current evaluation, the court assumes that the principal damages suffered by MTB amount to at least €43 million. When statutory interest is added in accordance with Dutch law and the court’s findings, the total compensation is expected to exceed €83 million. The court also indicated that expert costs incurred by MTB may be recoverable, subject to further substantiation.
Both parties have been instructed to submit additional statements by 18 March. A final judgment on damages will be rendered after the Dutch Supreme Court rules on a jurisdictional appeal filed by Heineken and Athenian Brewery.
Pending Supreme Court Decision
The jurisdictional issue is currently before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The appeal concerns whether the Dutch courts properly have jurisdiction over the dispute. A decision is anticipated later this month.
Notably, the Advocate General to the Supreme Court has already issued an advisory opinion recommending that the appeal be rejected in its entirety. The advice follows a ruling delivered on 13 February 2025 by the European Court of Justice in response to questions referred by the Dutch Supreme Court in this matter. That European judgment addressed key jurisdictional and legal interpretation issues relevant to the case, and its conclusions appear to strengthen MTB’s position.
If the Supreme Court follows the Advocate General’s recommendation and dismisses the appeal, the Amsterdam District Court will proceed to issue its final judgment on damages.
MTB’s Response
Demetri Chriss, director at MTB, welcomed the interim ruling, describing it as a strong signal that Dutch courts are prepared to award substantial damages in abuse of dominance cases. He emphasized the complexity involved in quantifying harm caused by a 16-year infringement and expressed satisfaction that the court had rejected what he characterized as efforts by Heineken to evade accountability.
Chriss also noted that MTB is awaiting the outcome of a new investigation by the Hellenic Competition Commission into alleged ongoing abuses in the Greek beer market following the original decision. According to him, developments in other jurisdictions raise additional concerns. He referred to findings in countries such as Austria, Hungary, and the United States, where subsidiaries of Heineken have reportedly faced sanctions or adverse rulings for similar or related practices.
In his view, these patterns suggest broader issues within the company’s corporate culture. Chriss stated that the Amsterdam court’s decisions demonstrate that small and medium-sized enterprises can successfully challenge large multinational corporations when supported by robust legal and economic arguments.
Broader Market Implications
The litigation may have further ramifications within the brewing sector. In a related development, Carlsberg and its Greek subsidiary Olympic have also initiated proceedings in Amsterdam against Heineken and Athenian Brewery. Their claim similarly seeks to hold the defendants liable for damages allegedly arising from the abuse of dominance in the Greek beer market.
As the case approaches its final phase, the forthcoming ruling from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands will be pivotal. Should jurisdiction be confirmed, the stage will be set for a definitive damages award that could exceed €83 million, marking one of the more significant private enforcement outcomes in European competition law in recent years.
Source Link:https://www.businesswire.com/
