Dutch brewer Heineken announced today that a Dutch court had awarded Macedonian Thrace Brewery €111m in damages, including interest, in a case the latter had brought against Heineken’s Greek subsidiary, Athenian Brewery.
Heineken said it disagrees with the reasoning behind the decision and will appeal. The case concerns practices by Athenian Brewery in the Greek beer market between 1998 and 2014.
In 2015, Greece’s Competition Commission had already fined Athenian Brewery €31.5m for abusing its dominant position in the production and distribution of beer. In subsequent court proceedings, the Dutch court has now awarded Macedonian Thrace Brewery €43m in damages and €68m in accrued interest.
Heineken argued that Macedonian Thrace Brewery’s damages claim was unrealistic and that the court had relied on assumptions about the company’s sales, pricing and profitability in a hypothetical scenario.
“These assumptions should be carefully examined against the available financial data and market developments during the relevant period,” the brewer said.
“We do not believe the damages awarded adequately reflect these factors.”
Heineken’s statement
On 21 October 2026, the Amsterdam District Court issued its ruling in the case involving HEINEKEN N.V., its Greek subsidiary Athenian Brewery (AB), and Macedonian Thrace Brewery (MTB).
The case is connected to the Hellenic Competition Commission’s 2015 decision concerning Athenian Brewery for the period 1998-2014, and relates to a damages claim subsequently brought by MTB as part of the same case.
The Court awarded MTB €43m in damages, together with €68m in statutory interest. Given the statutory interest rates and the lengthy court proceedings, 61% of the final total relates to the accumulation of interest.
HEINEKEN respects the Court and the legal process. However, it should be noted that it disagrees with significant parts of this decision. Claims for damages of this scale should be based on documented evidence and reflect actual market conditions.
The damages calculation is based in part on assumptions about MTB’s sales, pricing and profitability in a hypothetical market scenario.
HEINEKEN considers that these assumptions should be carefully examined against the available financial data and market developments during the relevant period, and believes that the damages awarded do not properly reflect these factors.
For these reasons, an appeal will be filed as the appropriate next legal step, so that these matters can be fully examined.
Compliance with competition law is a cornerstone of HEINEKEN’s corporate governance framework and is supported by policies, control mechanisms and training programmes throughout the organisation. The company operates with clear policies and standards for compliance with competition law in all the markets where it operates, and remains committed to these principles.