LUXEMBOURG--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Juliane Kokott has this week issued her opinion that damages claims resulting from market abuses by Heineken’s Greek subsidiary should be decided in the Netherlands.
In her opinion, Ms Kokott stated there is a clear “close connection” between the claims brought against both Heineken and its 98.8%-owned subsidiary, Athenian Brewery and that “no additional evidence” is required to establish that the Netherlands is the appropriate jurisdiction to hear these claims.
This week’s opinion should clear the way for the Amsterdam District Court to rule on Heineken’s ultimate liability for damages next month. The €160 million+ claim brought by Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB), an independent Greek competitor, could create a dangerous precedent for Heineken which faces a near identical claim from Carlsberg for over €300 million. Heineken has been sanctioned repeatedly for market abuses in the EU and elsewhere around the world.
The MTB litigation and the Carlsberg claim both follow on from the Greek competition regulator’s 2015 ruling that Heineken’s subsidiary was guilty of longstanding and widespread anticompetitive misconduct. Heineken still refuses to accept that any law was broken in Greece but nonetheless disclosed in its last Annual Report that it recognises a potential liability of €478 million in response to the damages claims from rivals MTB and Carlsberg following the Dutch brewer’s unlawful conduct in the Greek market.
Demetri Chriss, Director of Business Development at MTB, said:
“We are very happy with this crystal-clear opinion which chimes with what we’ve been saying all along, that Heineken and Athenian Brewery are responsible for throttling competition in Greece. The opinion leaves no doubt that the Dutch court can deal with the claims against both Athenian Brewery and Heineken.
Juliane Kokott, who delivered this opinion, is a highly-experienced Advocate General and I am confident that the courts will follow her lead. Kokott’s statement is very encouraging for any claimant facing a multinational trying to use procedural devices to delay justice or shirk their legal responsibilities.”