AKD publishes a monthly newsletter to inform you of the most important recent developments in competition law and adjacent regulation (such as FDI) at EU level and in the Benelux. This month featuring Delivery Hero & Glovo, Dawn raids in Belgium, the Mars/Kellanova and Liberty/Dorna concentrations and more. This newsletter brings you entirely up-to-date!
Cartels
European Commission imposes first fine over ‘no-poach’ agreement
The European Commission (“Commission”) has fined Delivery Hero and Glovo EUR 329 million for participating in a cartel. The companies are the largest online food delivery companies in Europe.
What is notable in this case is that for the first time the Commission has established a (purchasing) cartel in the labour market. Delivery Hero and Glovo had agreed not to recruit each other’s employees. Furthermore, the parties shared confidential business information and divided geographic markets.
Interestingly, the Commission emphasises the fact that Delivery Hero holds a minority share in Glovo. According to the Commission, Delivery Hero’s minority share in Glovo facilitated the infringements, a particular example being that Delivery Hero had access to commercially sensitive information about Glovo through its minority share.
Delivery Hero and Glovo have admitted their participation in the cartel and settled the case with the Commission.
Belgian Competition Authority confirms on premise inspections in personal care and retail sectors
On 24 June, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) confirmed it was conducting inspections at the premises of companies active in the personal care and retail sectors.
The BCA stated that the on-premise inspections took place due to indications that the companies involved may have taken part in anticompetitive agreements. In connection with the on-premise inspections, the BCA has also published updated guidelines on the conduct of inspections.
The BCA emphasises that the inspections are a preliminary step in the investigation and do not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
Belgian Competition Authority sanctions Nord Pool and EPEX SPOT for taking part in prohibited market sharing agreements in intraday electricity trade sector
The Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) announced on 26 June that it had sanctioned the companies Nord Pool and EPEX SPOT for taking part in prohibited market sharing agreements on the market for intraday electricity trade.
The prohibited agreements restricted competition from March 2009 through December 2015 and consisted of a market sharing arrangement pursuant to which the companies involved agreed not to enter each other’s geographic markets. The agreements were made by Nord Pool and the predecessors acquired by EPEX SPOT.
Nord Pool operates a platform for intraday trade of electricity on several European markets. The intraday trade of electricity ensures that market players can trade available electricity capacity within very short timeframes to ensure balance on the electricity grid. EPEX SPOT acquired APX and Belpex, companies that also offered a platform for the intraday trade of electricity during the infringement period, also including in Belgium and the Netherlands. The BCA emphasises that the market sharing agreements were reinforced by exclusive licensing arrangements between Nord Pool and APX and Belpex, pursuant to which APX and Belpex could exclusively operate the licence for Nord Pool’s Elbas-system to couple the Belgian and Dutch markets.
The BCA imposed a fine of € 79,810 on Nord Pool. The BCA indicates that the low amount of the fine is due to the old method of calculating fines, which provided for a cap of 10% of the turnover generated in Belgium. Because of the prohibited market sharing arrangement in question, Nord Pool only had limited presence in Belgium. EPEX SPOT, however, was granted immunity as it had notified the BCA of the arrangement when it acquired APX and Belpex.
Abuse of dominant position
District Court of Rotterdam upholds Dutch Competition Authority decision on abuse of dominant position by Apple in case over App Store conditions for dating app providers
In a judgment of 16 June, the District Court of Rotterdam for the most part upheld the decision of the Dutch Competition Authority’s (“ACM”) finding that Apple abused its dominant position within the meaning of Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).and imposing an order on Apple, subject to a penalty for non-compliance.
The ACM imposed an order subject to a penalty for non-compliance on Apple after a finding that Apple had abused its dominant position by imposing unfair trading conditions on dating app providers. It found that dating app providers are dependent on the App Store, and thereby dependent on Apple. More specifically, Apple imposed on dating app providers the condition that purchases within the app (also: “in-app purchases”) had to be settled and processed by Apple. Apple subsequently charged the dating app providers a commission of 15 to 30%. Additionally, dating app providers were prohibited from referring to payment options outside of the app.
In the appeal against the ACM decision, Apple argued that the ACM had failed to prove its assertions in relation to the market definition, the determination of Apple’s dominant position and the abuse of that position. The District Court of Rotterdam rejects these arguments. Apple objected in addition to the ACM’s finding that websites of providers of dating services providers were not part of the relevant market. According to the District Court of Rotterdam, the ACM proved it is sufficiently plausible that websites of dating services providers are not part of the relevant market. With regard to the abuse itself, the District Court of Rotterdam finds that Apple did not provide a sufficient justification of its conduct and of the conditions imposed on dating app providers. Less onerous conditions, for instance with regard to payment terms, were possible without negating the protection of Apple’s interests. The District Court of Rotterdam also points out that Apple’s policy lacked coherence.
As to the order subject to a penalty for non-compliance, the District Court of Rotterdam for the most part – apart from one subset of conditions – affirms the order imposed by the ACM. The District Court of Rotterdam agrees with Apple’s arguments concerning the cumulative and thereby disproportionate nature of the conditions set by ACM. Pursuant to these conditions Apple was made to offer the option to dating app providers to choose who settles and processes payments for in-app purchases, as well as the option to allow the dating app providers to refer to a payment site outside of the app. The District Court of Rotterdam finds that these cumulative requirements go beyond what is necessary to put an end to the infringement found. This part of the order cannot therefore remain in place.
Merger control
Commission unconditionally approves acquisition of Dorna by Liberty Media
The European Commission (“Commission”) has unconditionally approved the proposed acquisition of Dorna Sports S.L. (“Dorna”) by Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media”) unconditionally. Both companies are international media companies with Dorna being the organiser of and holding the commercial rights to the MotoGP. Liberty Media owns interests in a broad range of media, sports and entertainment businesses, including Formula 1.
The Commission performed an in-depth investigation to assess whether the concentration would reduce competition in the licensing of broadcasting rights for sports content. The Commission finds that MotoGP and Formula 1 face competition from all sports content. The product market could be further divided into regular, such as seasonal, vs. irregular and premium vs. non-premium sports. The geographical market is determined to be national. In the relevant market concerned, the two companies are not found to be close competitors. The Commission cleared the merger unconditionally.
Commission approves acquisition of BPM by UniCredit subject to a divestment obligation
The proposed acquisition of Banco BPM S.p.A (“BPM”) by UniCredit S.p.A (“UniCredit”) has been approved by the European Commission (“Commission”). The approval is subject to several conditions. BPM and UniCredit are active in the corporate banking services sector and cater to small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and large corporate clients. Additionally, they provide retail banking services and insurance and asset management services. While BPM mainly operators in Italy, UniCredit is active in Italy, Germany and Central and Eastern Europe.
Following its investigation, the Commission finds that the acquisition may lead to higher prices and reduced competition at a local level, because of the strong horizontal overlap between the companies’ branches in local areas. The Commission finds that there would be competition concerns in the market for deposits and loans for retail consumers, as well as SMEs.
However, at a regional level, the Commission concludes that there are no competition concerns for large corporate clients as there are other well-established competitors available. The Commission also finds coordination to be unlikely given the fragmented and competitive character of the Italian banking market. Therefore, the Commission accepts the proposed remedy by UniCredit to divest 209 physical branches in problematic overlap locations.
Lastly, the Commission rejects a request from the Italian competition authority to refer the merger to the authority for an assessment under Italian law. The Commission finds that is well placed to deal with the transaction, especially given the particular interest the Commission has in preserving competition in the banking and insurance sectors.
Commission announces second phase investigation into proposed acquisition of Kellanova by Mars
The European Commission (“Commission”) has opened an in-depth investigation to assess the proposed acquisition of Kellanova by Mars. The Commission has preliminary concerns that the transaction could lead to higher prices for consumers due to Mars' increased negotiating power towards retailers.
Mars is a global supplier of a large range of popular food brands, including chewing gums, chocolate confectionery, sugar confectionary, rice and pet food. Kellanova (formerly the Kellogg Company) is primarily known for the Pringles and Kellogg’s brands. The Commission's preliminary investigation indicates that, by enlarging its product portfolio with the addition of Kellanova's very popular brands, Mars could increase its bargaining power vis-à-vis retailers. As a result, Mars could be in a position to use this increased leverage, for example, to extract higher prices during negotiations, which in turn would lead to higher prices for consumers.
The proposed transaction was notified to the Commission on 16 May 2025. In principle, the Commission now has 90 working days, until 31 October 2025, to take a (second-phase) decision.
ACM approves acquisition of RTL Nederland by DPG Media subject to strict conditions
The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") has approved the acquisition of RTL Nederland by DPG Media subject to strict conditions, to safeguard media pluralism. DPG and RTL are both providers of general news in the Netherlands. DPG publishes various newspapers, such as Algemeen Dagblad, de Volkskrant, Trouw, and Het Parool. DPG is also a provider of free online news, including through NU.nl. RTL Nederland operates several commercial television channels. RTL also offers the video streaming service Videoland. RTL provides free news through television, the RTL Nieuws website, and its app.
The ACM examined the potential consequences of the concentration for the pluralism of the news offering and the opinion power of the newly formed media company. News companies compete with each other on speed, accuracy, breadth, and depth of their news content. According to the ACM, this competition could disappear between DPG and RTL, resulting in less investment in the quality of the (online) news offering, which would also negatively affect media pluralism. The ACM also perceived the risk that, as a result of the acquisition, DPG and RTL would be in a position to politically or commercially influence the news offering. This depends on the extent of influence over collective opinion formation, referred to as ‘opinion power’.
To eliminate the negative effects of the acquisition, a package of measures has been imposed as a condition for approval. Among other things, DPG commits to continuing to offer the websites and apps of both RTL Nieuws and NU.nl free of charge to consumers. DPG will also update the editorial statutes of its news media and embed key principles that further strengthen editorial independence and journalistic reliability. DPG will establish specific foundations for both RTL Nieuws and NU.nl, which will act as supervisors to safeguard the mission and identity of RTL Nieuws and NU.nl. These foundations will be given veto rights over the appointment and dismissal of the editor-in-chief, changes to the mission and identity, the termination of publication and/or broadcasting of RTL Nieuws and NU.nl, and the sale of RTL Nieuws and NU.nl.
The full package of conditions can be consulted in the summary of the ACM’s decision.
State aid
Commission publishes new State aid framework for clean industry
On 25 June 2025, the European Commission (“Commission”) adopted a new State aid framework in support of the Clean Industrial Deal. The Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework (“CISAF”) replaces the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework and will be in place until 31 December 2030.
The CISAF simplifies State aid rules in areas that align with climate goals, enabling faster authorisation of State aid in those areas. It is focussed on temporary price relief for energy intensive sectors as a transition measure, decarbonisation, roll-out of renewable energy, development of clean tech and de-risking clean energy investments.
General Court dismisses appeal by Ryanair against Commission decision not to raise objections against a public loan guaranteed by Germany to Condor
In a judgment of 25 June 2025, the General Court of the EU (“General Court”) dismissed an action for annulment brought by Ryanair against a decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) stating that aid granted by Germany to Condor Flügdienst for an amount of EUR 144.1 million is compliant with Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.
Ryanair’s pleas on the merits of the decision are inadmissible due to its limited competitive relationship with Condor and a failure to state information on the impact of the measure at issue on Ryanair’s competitive position. Two of Ryanair’s claims are admissible. These amount to a complaint that the measure at issue does not comply with the conditions of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, and a failure by the Commission to state reasons.
In support of the first admissible plea, Ryanair argued, inter alia, that the Commission ought to have used the EBITDA as opposed to EBT when calculating the damage suffered by Condor to establish whether the aid was not excessive. That complaint was rejected. Furthermore, the complaint that the reference revenue for the counterfactual being based on the 2020 business plan as opposed to historical revenue was dismissed because the most recent numbers were distorted by the bankruptcy of Condor’s parent company. The General Court also rejected the other complaints and the second plea brought by Ryanair.
Contact
Do you have any questions about one of the topics discussed, or would you like to know what these developments mean for your organisation? Please don’t hesitate to contact our team.
AKD publishes a monthly newsletter to inform you of the most important recent developments in competition law and adjacent regulation (such as FDI) at EU level and in the Benelux. This month featuring Delivery Hero & Glovo, Dawn raids in Belgium, the Mars/Kellanova and Liberty/Dorna concentrations and more. This newsletter brings you entirely up-to-date!
Cartels
European Commission imposes first fine over ‘no-poach’ agreement
The European Commission (“Commission”) has fined Delivery Hero and Glovo EUR 329 million for participating in a cartel. The companies are the largest online food delivery companies in Europe.
What is notable in this case is that for the first time the Commission has established a (purchasing) cartel in the labour market. Delivery Hero and Glovo had agreed not to recruit each other’s employees. Furthermore, the parties shared confidential business information and divided geographic markets.
Interestingly, the Commission emphasises the fact that Delivery Hero holds a minority share in Glovo. According to the Commission, Delivery Hero’s minority share in Glovo facilitated the infringements, a particular example being that Delivery Hero had access to commercially sensitive information about Glovo through its minority share.
Delivery Hero and Glovo have admitted their participation in the cartel and settled the case with the Commission.
Belgian Competition Authority confirms on premise inspections in personal care and retail sectors
On 24 June, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) confirmed it was conducting inspections at the premises of companies active in the personal care and retail sectors.
The BCA stated that the on-premise inspections took place due to indications that the companies involved may have taken part in anticompetitive agreements. In connection with the on-premise inspections, the BCA has also published updated guidelines on the conduct of inspections.
The BCA emphasises that the inspections are a preliminary step in the investigation and do not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
Belgian Competition Authority sanctions Nord Pool and EPEX SPOT for taking part in prohibited market sharing agreements in intraday electricity trade sector
The Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) announced on 26 June that it had sanctioned the companies Nord Pool and EPEX SPOT for taking part in prohibited market sharing agreements on the market for intraday electricity trade.
The prohibited agreements restricted competition from March 2009 through December 2015 and consisted of a market sharing arrangement pursuant to which the companies involved agreed not to enter each other’s geographic markets. The agreements were made by Nord Pool and the predecessors acquired by EPEX SPOT.
Nord Pool operates a platform for intraday trade of electricity on several European markets. The intraday trade of electricity ensures that market players can trade available electricity capacity within very short timeframes to ensure balance on the electricity grid. EPEX SPOT acquired APX and Belpex, companies that also offered a platform for the intraday trade of electricity during the infringement period, also including in Belgium and the Netherlands. The BCA emphasises that the market sharing agreements were reinforced by exclusive licensing arrangements between Nord Pool and APX and Belpex, pursuant to which APX and Belpex could exclusively operate the licence for Nord Pool’s Elbas-system to couple the Belgian and Dutch markets.
The BCA imposed a fine of € 79,810 on Nord Pool. The BCA indicates that the low amount of the fine is due to the old method of calculating fines, which provided for a cap of 10% of the turnover generated in Belgium. Because of the prohibited market sharing arrangement in question, Nord Pool only had limited presence in Belgium. EPEX SPOT, however, was granted immunity as it had notified the BCA of the arrangement when it acquired APX and Belpex.
Abuse of dominant position
District Court of Rotterdam upholds Dutch Competition Authority decision on abuse of dominant position by Apple in case over App Store conditions for dating app providers
In a judgment of 16 June, the District Court of Rotterdam for the most part upheld the decision of the Dutch Competition Authority’s (“ACM”) finding that Apple abused its dominant position within the meaning of Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).and imposing an order on Apple, subject to a penalty for non-compliance.
The ACM imposed an order subject to a penalty for non-compliance on Apple after a finding that Apple had abused its dominant position by imposing unfair trading conditions on dating app providers. It found that dating app providers are dependent on the App Store, and thereby dependent on Apple. More specifically, Apple imposed on dating app providers the condition that purchases within the app (also: “in-app purchases”) had to be settled and processed by Apple. Apple subsequently charged the dating app providers a commission of 15 to 30%. Additionally, dating app providers were prohibited from referring to payment options outside of the app.
In the appeal against the ACM decision, Apple argued that the ACM had failed to prove its assertions in relation to the market definition, the determination of Apple’s dominant position and the abuse of that position. The District Court of Rotterdam rejects these arguments. Apple objected in addition to the ACM’s finding that websites of providers of dating services providers were not part of the relevant market. According to the District Court of Rotterdam, the ACM proved it is sufficiently plausible that websites of dating services providers are not part of the relevant market. With regard to the abuse itself, the District Court of Rotterdam finds that Apple did not provide a sufficient justification of its conduct and of the conditions imposed on dating app providers. Less onerous conditions, for instance with regard to payment terms, were possible without negating the protection of Apple’s interests. The District Court of Rotterdam also points out that Apple’s policy lacked coherence.
As to the order subject to a penalty for non-compliance, the District Court of Rotterdam for the most part – apart from one subset of conditions – affirms the order imposed by the ACM. The District Court of Rotterdam agrees with Apple’s arguments concerning the cumulative and thereby disproportionate nature of the conditions set by ACM. Pursuant to these conditions Apple was made to offer the option to dating app providers to choose who settles and processes payments for in-app purchases, as well as the option to allow the dating app providers to refer to a payment site outside of the app. The District Court of Rotterdam finds that these cumulative requirements go beyond what is necessary to put an end to the infringement found. This part of the order cannot therefore remain in place.
Merger control
Commission unconditionally approves acquisition of Dorna by Liberty Media
The European Commission (“Commission”) has unconditionally approved the proposed acquisition of Dorna Sports S.L. (“Dorna”) by Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media”) unconditionally. Both companies are international media companies with Dorna being the organiser of and holding the commercial rights to the MotoGP. Liberty Media owns interests in a broad range of media, sports and entertainment businesses, including Formula 1.
The Commission performed an in-depth investigation to assess whether the concentration would reduce competition in the licensing of broadcasting rights for sports content. The Commission finds that MotoGP and Formula 1 face competition from all sports content. The product market could be further divided into regular, such as seasonal, vs. irregular and premium vs. non-premium sports. The geographical market is determined to be national. In the relevant market concerned, the two companies are not found to be close competitors. The Commission cleared the merger unconditionally.
Commission approves acquisition of BPM by UniCredit subject to a divestment obligation
The proposed acquisition of Banco BPM S.p.A (“BPM”) by UniCredit S.p.A (“UniCredit”) has been approved by the European Commission (“Commission”). The approval is subject to several conditions. BPM and UniCredit are active in the corporate banking services sector and cater to small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and large corporate clients. Additionally, they provide retail banking services and insurance and asset management services. While BPM mainly operators in Italy, UniCredit is active in Italy, Germany and Central and Eastern Europe.
Following its investigation, the Commission finds that the acquisition may lead to higher prices and reduced competition at a local level, because of the strong horizontal overlap between the companies’ branches in local areas. The Commission finds that there would be competition concerns in the market for deposits and loans for retail consumers, as well as SMEs.
However, at a regional level, the Commission concludes that there are no competition concerns for large corporate clients as there are other well-established competitors available. The Commission also finds coordination to be unlikely given the fragmented and competitive character of the Italian banking market. Therefore, the Commission accepts the proposed remedy by UniCredit to divest 209 physical branches in problematic overlap locations.
Lastly, the Commission rejects a request from the Italian competition authority to refer the merger to the authority for an assessment under Italian law. The Commission finds that is well placed to deal with the transaction, especially given the particular interest the Commission has in preserving competition in the banking and insurance sectors.
Commission announces second phase investigation into proposed acquisition of Kellanova by Mars
The European Commission (“Commission”) has opened an in-depth investigation to assess the proposed acquisition of Kellanova by Mars. The Commission has preliminary concerns that the transaction could lead to higher prices for consumers due to Mars' increased negotiating power towards retailers.
Mars is a global supplier of a large range of popular food brands, including chewing gums, chocolate confectionery, sugar confectionary, rice and pet food. Kellanova (formerly the Kellogg Company) is primarily known for the Pringles and Kellogg’s brands. The Commission's preliminary investigation indicates that, by enlarging its product portfolio with the addition of Kellanova's very popular brands, Mars could increase its bargaining power vis-à-vis retailers. As a result, Mars could be in a position to use this increased leverage, for example, to extract higher prices during negotiations, which in turn would lead to higher prices for consumers.
The proposed transaction was notified to the Commission on 16 May 2025. In principle, the Commission now has 90 working days, until 31 October 2025, to take a (second-phase) decision.
ACM approves acquisition of RTL Nederland by DPG Media subject to strict conditions
The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets ("ACM") has approved the acquisition of RTL Nederland by DPG Media subject to strict conditions, to safeguard media pluralism. DPG and RTL are both providers of general news in the Netherlands. DPG publishes various newspapers, such as Algemeen Dagblad, de Volkskrant, Trouw, and Het Parool. DPG is also a provider of free online news, including through NU.nl. RTL Nederland operates several commercial television channels. RTL also offers the video streaming service Videoland. RTL provides free news through television, the RTL Nieuws website, and its app.
The ACM examined the potential consequences of the concentration for the pluralism of the news offering and the opinion power of the newly formed media company. News companies compete with each other on speed, accuracy, breadth, and depth of their news content. According to the ACM, this competition could disappear between DPG and RTL, resulting in less investment in the quality of the (online) news offering, which would also negatively affect media pluralism. The ACM also perceived the risk that, as a result of the acquisition, DPG and RTL would be in a position to politically or commercially influence the news offering. This depends on the extent of influence over collective opinion formation, referred to as ‘opinion power’.
To eliminate the negative effects of the acquisition, a package of measures has been imposed as a condition for approval. Among other things, DPG commits to continuing to offer the websites and apps of both RTL Nieuws and NU.nl free of charge to consumers. DPG will also update the editorial statutes of its news media and embed key principles that further strengthen editorial independence and journalistic reliability. DPG will establish specific foundations for both RTL Nieuws and NU.nl, which will act as supervisors to safeguard the mission and identity of RTL Nieuws and NU.nl. These foundations will be given veto rights over the appointment and dismissal of the editor-in-chief, changes to the mission and identity, the termination of publication and/or broadcasting of RTL Nieuws and NU.nl, and the sale of RTL Nieuws and NU.nl.
The full package of conditions can be consulted in the summary of the ACM’s decision.
State aid
Commission publishes new State aid framework for clean industry
On 25 June 2025, the European Commission (“Commission”) adopted a new State aid framework in support of the Clean Industrial Deal. The Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework (“CISAF”) replaces the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework and will be in place until 31 December 2030.
The CISAF simplifies State aid rules in areas that align with climate goals, enabling faster authorisation of State aid in those areas. It is focussed on temporary price relief for energy intensive sectors as a transition measure, decarbonisation, roll-out of renewable energy, development of clean tech and de-risking clean energy investments.
General Court dismisses appeal by Ryanair against Commission decision not to raise objections against a public loan guaranteed by Germany to Condor
In a judgment of 25 June 2025, the General Court of the EU (“General Court”) dismissed an action for annulment brought by Ryanair against a decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) stating that aid granted by Germany to Condor Flügdienst for an amount of EUR 144.1 million is compliant with Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.
Ryanair’s pleas on the merits of the decision are inadmissible due to its limited competitive relationship with Condor and a failure to state information on the impact of the measure at issue on Ryanair’s competitive position. Two of Ryanair’s claims are admissible. These amount to a complaint that the measure at issue does not comply with the conditions of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU, and a failure by the Commission to state reasons.
In support of the first admissible plea, Ryanair argued, inter alia, that the Commission ought to have used the EBITDA as opposed to EBT when calculating the damage suffered by Condor to establish whether the aid was not excessive. That complaint was rejected. Furthermore, the complaint that the reference revenue for the counterfactual being based on the 2020 business plan as opposed to historical revenue was dismissed because the most recent numbers were distorted by the bankruptcy of Condor’s parent company. The General Court also rejected the other complaints and the second plea brought by Ryanair.
Contact
Do you have any questions about one of the topics discussed, or would you like to know what these developments mean for your organisation? Please don’t hesitate to contact our team.