Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
A Dutch court has found that Heineken is liable for competition violations committed by its Greek subsidiary as far back as the 1990s, potentially leaving the brewer open to hundreds of millions of euros in fines.
The judgment, made by the Amsterdam District Court on Wednesday, found that the Dutch brewer was jointly liable, alongside Athenian Brewery, for “abuse of dominant position”.
The long-running saga began almost a decade ago when, after a lengthy investigation and numerous raids of its offices, Greece’s competition regulator in 2015 announced it had fined Athenian Brewery €31.5mn for anti-competitive behaviour in the market between 1998 and 2014.
The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) said Athenian Brewery “sought to exclude its competitors [from bars, restaurants and hotels] and to limit their growth possibilities, over a period of fifteen years”. In 2017 the Administrative Appeals Court in Athens upheld the decision, but lowered the original fine to €26.7mn.
Two follow-on cases seeking damages were subsequently filed in the Dutch court by Heineken’s competitors, one brought by smaller competitor Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB) and another by an unnamed claimant.
Heineken, which recorded contingencies of €478mn for these cases in its 2023 annual report, confirmed to the Financial Times that the second follow-up claim had been brought 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 Fix and Mythos, holds 31 per cent, while MTB, the brewer of Vergina beer, has 5 per cent.
The next steps of the litigation will determine whether MTB suffered damages, and the extent of the liability. MTB, which first filed its claim in 2017, is seeking compensation of at least €162mn from Heineken and Athenian Brewery, according to the court filing.
Carlsberg, which has not disclosed details of its claim, said: “We can confirm that we have a pending claim related to a competition case in Greece. We have noted the court’s decision on Wednesday, however there is no immediate impact on our claim at this point.”
Demetri Chriss, director of business development at MTB, said the judgment was a “victory for all of Europe’s independent brewers that have found themselves on the receiving end of abuses perpetrated by multinational behemoths with opaque corporate structures”.
A spokesperson for Heineken told the FT the judgment was a “technical legal decision”.
“Damages, if any, will be determined and would only be payable after a decision on the substantive merits of the case,” they said, adding, “it is not possible to estimate the outcome of these claims with any degree of certainty.”
Heineken, which has until December 4 to file a statement of reply, has previously argued that it should not face litigation for damages in the Netherlands to compensate for violations of antitrust rules by its subsidiary. However, the judgment concluded that Heineken exercises “decisive influence” over the subsidiary and is therefore jointly liable.
Heineken indirectly holds 98.8 per cent of Athenian Brewery’s shares through its subsidiary Heineken International BV. Heineken had control over its board of directors and is responsible for appointing its managing director, the judgment pointed out.
“The court comes to the conclusion that Heineken and AB (Athenian Brewery) are indeed part of the same economic unit and therefore the same undertaking within the meaning of competition law,” the judgment read. “As a result, Heineken is held jointly liable for the abuse of dominance already found against AB by the Greek authorities.”
