Damages for abuse of dominance: what does the Heineken/MTB judgment mean?

On 21 October 2026 the Amsterdam District Court (rechtbank Amsterdam) ordered Heineken N.V. and its Greek subsidiary Athenian Brewery to pay €111.2 million, jointly and severally, to the Greek brewer Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB). The award consists of €43.3 million in damages and €67.9 million in interest. The judgment (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:10277) is provisionally enforceable, but Heineken has announced that it will appeal.

The judgment shows that a Dutch parent company can be sued in the Netherlands for competition law infringements by a foreign subsidiary. That makes the Netherlands an attractive forum for damages claims by competitors and customers.

What happened?

The Hellenic Competition Commission found in 2014 that Athenian Brewery abused its dominant position on the Greek beer market from September 1998 to September 2014 (Article 102 TFEU). Its market share was around 70%. The abuse consisted of exclusivity deals and loyalty rebates in bars and restaurants, shelf-space conditions in supermarkets and the foreclosure of competitors at wholesale level.

On appeal, the Greek fine was reduced from over €31 million to €27 million. The decision is final. Heineken indirectly holds 98.8% of the shares in Athenian Brewery.

Why did a Dutch court rule on market abuse in Greece?

MTB sued Heineken N.V. in Amsterdam, where Heineken has its seat, together with the Greek subsidiary. Under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, a co-defendant from another Member State can be joined if the claims are closely connected.

On questions from the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), the Court of Justice of the EU held on 13 February 2025 (C-393/23, ECLI:EU:C:2025:85) that the court may rely on the presumption of decisive influence for this purpose. That presumption applies where the parent holds all or nearly all of the shares. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal had already confirmed jurisdiction over the Greek subsidiary in 2021 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:509). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against that ruling on 29 May 2026 (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:814).

Why is Heineken liable as the parent company?

Under EU competition law, a parent and its subsidiary form a single undertaking if the parent exercises decisive influence. The court established this in its interim judgment of 23 October 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6476). Heineken is therefore jointly and severally liable for the loss caused by Athenian Brewery, even though the parent itself did not take part in the conduct in Greece.

How were the damages calculated?

Greek law applies to the claim (interim judgment of 25 May 2022, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:2866), including the Greek act implementing the Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU). As a result, the court was bound by the Greek authority’s finding of an infringement (interim judgment of 6 December 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:7822). MTB did not have to prove the infringement again; this is known as a follow-on claim.

The court compared the actual situation with a scenario without the abuse. It assumed that MTB would have reached a volume of 200,000 hectolitres three years earlier, at higher prices. Price rises caused by the Greek excise duty increases of 2016 and 2017 were left out. The court set the method in its interim judgment of 18 February 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1692). After the excise correction, Heineken and Athenian Brewery’s own calculation came to €43,337,000; the court adopted that figure.

Why is the interest higher than the damages?

Statutory interest under Greek law runs from the moment the loss arose, so from 1998. Up to 1 October 2026 the interest amounts to €67,887,000. After that date, interest continues to run until payment, with a surcharge of two percentage points for the period after the writ of summons.

On this point the court reversed an earlier ruling. It had first held that the Greek interest rule implementing the Damages Directive (Article 3(3) of the Greek Antitrust Damages Act) does not apply retroactively. Following the CJEU’s judgment of 30 April 2026 in Wenzel/Mercedes (C-191/25, ECLI:EU:C:2026:360), that rule also applies to claims brought after 27 December 2016. MTB filed its claim on 23 February 2017.

The court rejected the argument that this leads to overcompensation. This point is expected to be central on appeal. Heineken and Athenian Brewery must also reimburse €800,000 of the costs of MTB’s economic expert, two thirds of the €1.19 million claimed, and €40,916 in legal costs.

What is the wider significance?

The case has run since February 2017 and went through the District Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the EU. The judgment confirms three points that matter to any international group:

• a parent company can be sued in its home country for infringements by an (almost) wholly owned subsidiary in another Member State;
• a final decision of a national competition authority binds the civil court, which greatly eases the claimant’s burden of proof;
• in long-running infringements, interest can exceed the damages themselves.

Since 2017 Dutch law has its own rules on damages for cartels and abuse of dominance in Article 6:193k et seq. of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). For competitors and customers, the Netherlands is therefore a serious option.

What should you check as a business with a strong market position?

• Identify which group companies hold a large market share; from around 40%, caution is needed.
• Test exclusivity deals, loyalty rebates and shelf-space arrangements against Article 102 TFEU and Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act (Mededingingswet).
• Bear in mind that a decision by a foreign authority can be relied on against the parent in the Netherlands.
• When facing a possible claim, calculate interest over the full infringement period, not just the damages.

What should you check if you suffer loss from market abuse?

• Check whether an authority, such as the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) or the European Commission, has already found an infringement.
• Keep turnover, price and volume figures for the whole period; they are needed to calculate the loss.
• Watch the limitation period: under Dutch law a competition damages claim is time-barred after five years (Article 6:193s Dutch Civil Code). Under foreign law the period may differ.
• Consider whether you can sue the parent company in the Netherlands if a foreign subsidiary committed the infringement.

What can we do for you in cartel and abuse of dominance damages cases?

• We assess whether an authority’s decision allows a follow-on claim.
• We determine which court you can sue in and which law applies.
• We check which limitation periods are running and interrupt them where needed.
• We work with economic experts to substantiate the loss.
• We review rebate and exclusivity schemes against competition law for businesses.

Summary

• Heineken and Athenian Brewery must pay €111.2 million: €43.3 million in damages and €67.9 million in interest.
• The Dutch court had jurisdiction through the parent company (CJEU C-393/23, Dutch Supreme Court 29 May 2026).
• The Greek authority’s decision was binding; only the loss had to be calculated.
• Interest runs from 1998 and exceeds the damages themselves.
• The judgment is provisionally enforceable; Heineken has announced an appeal.