The Amsterdam District Court has ordered Dutch brewing giant Heineken and its Greek subsidiary Athenian Brewery to pay EUR 111.224 million in compensation to independent Greek brewer Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB), producer of the popular Vergina beer brand. The ruling, issued on 21 October 2026, follows a lengthy dispute over anti-competitive practices in the Greek beer market between 1998 and 2014.
The compensation comprises EUR 43.337 million in lost profits and EUR 67.887 million in accumulated interest. The exceptionally high interest component reflects the court's decision to calculate interest from the period when the unlawful conduct occurred, beginning in 1998. In addition, Heineken and Athenian Brewery must jointly cover EUR 800,000 in expert fees, plus applicable interest, and approximately EUR 41,000 in legal costs. Further Greek litigation interest will accrue on the principal damages from 1 October 2026 until payment.
The case originated from a December 2015 decision by the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC), which concluded that Athenian Brewery had systematically abused its dominant position in Greece for approximately 16 years. The company used exclusivity agreements, financial incentives and preferential trading conditions to restrict competitors' access to wholesalers, retailers, hotels, restaurants and bars. At the time, Athenian Brewery had previously controlled more than 70% of the Greek beer market. The competition authority initially imposed a fine of EUR 31.5 million, subsequently reduced to EUR 26.7 million by an Athens appeals court in 2017 (inside.beer, 06.07.2017).
Following the competition authority's findings, MTB filed a EUR 100 million damages claim against Heineken and Athenian Brewery in Amsterdam in February 2017, arguing that the restrictive practices had prevented the independent brewer from expanding its market share despite continuous investment in production and distribution (inside.beer, 24.02.2017).
The proceedings subsequently established that Heineken and its subsidiary constituted a single economic undertaking and could be held jointly and severally liable for the infringement. In February 2025, the European Court of Justice clarified the jurisdictional rules governing such cross-border competition claims. The Dutch Supreme Court rejected the brewers' remaining jurisdictional challenge in May 2026, clearing the way for a final assessment of damages.
In an interim judgment in February 2026, the Amsterdam court largely accepted the economic methodology developed by consultancy Oxera on behalf of MTB, while requiring adjustments to account for changes in beer excise duties. The court rejected significant objections raised by Heineken and its economic adviser Charles River Associates (CRA). At that stage, the expected compensation already exceeded EUR 83 million, including interest (inside.beer, 05.03.2026).
Heineken has rejected the October judgment and announced its intention to appeal. The company argues that the damages calculation relies on unrealistic assumptions about MTB's hypothetical sales volumes, pricing and profitability in a market without the anti-competitive conduct. Although the court declared its judgment provisionally enforceable, the dispute is therefore not necessarily concluded.
For MTB, however, the ruling represents a major victory. Demetri Chriss, the company's Director of Business Development, described the judgment as one of the most important milestones in the brewery's history, following almost three decades of efforts to obtain compensation for the restrictions imposed on its business.
The financial consequences for Heineken could extend considerably beyond the present award. Danish brewing group Carlsberg and its Greek subsidiary Olympic Brewery, producer of Mythos beer, are pursuing a separate damages claim against Heineken and Athenian Brewery in Amsterdam arising from the same anti-competitive practices. According to industry reports, the claim exceeds EUR 300 million. The Dutch judgment could strengthen the position of other companies seeking compensation for historical competition infringements.
Heineken also faces competition-related proceedings in Austria. Its subsidiary Brau Union, the country's largest brewing group, is accused by the Austrian Federal Competition Authority of abusing its dominant market position and restricting competition through agreements with beverage distributors. In March 2026, Brau Union introduced revised contractual arrangements and commitments to address several concerns. However, the authority maintained its application for a financial penalty, leaving the proceedings unresolved (inside.beer, 18.06.2024).
Meanwhile, Greek competition authorities have opened a separate investigation into suspected anti-competitive practices in the beer and alcoholic beverages sector. Unannounced inspections were conducted in January 2023. The investigation does not itself establish any new infringement, but it highlights the continuing regulatory scrutiny of the Greek beverage market.
Beyond the immediate financial implications, the Amsterdam judgment illustrates the growing risks for multinational brewing groups arising from competition violations committed by their subsidiaries. The case demonstrates how national competition findings can lead to substantial private damages awards years later, with accumulated interest potentially exceeding the original economic damage.
