Noa van den Brink

On 10 April 2026, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment of significance to investment companies and conglomerates with multiple subsidiaries. The central question was whether a parent company fined by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (“ACM”) for a cartel infringement committed by its subsidiary can recover the fine paid from that subsidiary. The Supreme Court’s answer is clear, but contains a nuance that is important in practice. The case Between 2004 and 2011, the investment firm Bencis held an indirect stake in Meneba, a Dutch flour manufacturer. From 2001 to 2007, Meneba participated in a cartel of flour manufacturers, in breach of article 6 of the Competition Act and article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Dutch Competition Authority (the legal predecessor of the ACM) therefore imposed a fine of €9 million on Meneba in 2010. On 17 July 2014, the ACM also decided to impose a fine on Bencis. This fine followed Bencis’s sale of its shares in Meneba in 2011. The basis for this fine was that Bencis, as the parent company, was able to exercise decisive influence over Meneba’s commercial policy, meaning that, for the purposes of competition law, it formed a single undertaking with its subsidiary Meneba. The fine imposed on Bencis amounted to over €1.27 million. Although Bencis contested the fine, it was upheld by both the Administrative Court and the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (“CBb”). Bencis considered it unfair that it had to pay a fine for the conduct of its former subsidiary and brought the matter before the civil court. It claimed compensation from Dossche (the party that had acquired Meneba in 2018) for the fine imposed on it. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the claims. As set out in further detail below, the cassation appeal lodged against this decision was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s ruling The Supreme Court held, first and foremost, that the allocation of liability for a competition fine within a single undertaking is governed by national law, subject to the EU law principles of effectiveness and equivalence. Insofar as Bencis based its claim on a tort (Article 6:162 of the Civil Code), the Supreme Court ruled that a breach of competition law by a subsidiary is not automatically unlawful vis-à-vis the parent company. Additional circumstances are required for this, for example that the subsidiary deliberately misled the parent company or kept it unaware of the infringement. As Bencis failed to establish such additional circumstances, the claim for tortious liability was dismissed. The Supreme Court did not assess the substance of Bencis’s argument that Meneba had been unjustly enriched at Bencis’s expense, on the grounds that Meneba had paid a lower fine than would have been the case had it been the sole party fined. However, the Court of Appeal had already ruled that there was no unjust enrichment, a ruling which was upheld on appeal. Conclusion and practical implications This judgment could have far-reaching consequences for investment companies and other conglomerates. Where a parent company exercises decisive influence over a subsidiary, it runs the risk of being held personally liable for that subsidiary’s competition law infringements, even if it was unaware of them. As this judgment emphasises, recouping a fine imposed on the subsidiary from the parent company is only possible if the parent company can demonstrate additional circumstances from which it follows that the subsidiary acted unlawfully, for example through deception or the deliberate withholding of information. The lesson is clear. Investment firms and conglomerates would be well advised to invest in ongoing compliance within their portfolio companies. Neither conducting due diligence prior to an acquisition nor carrying out annual checks on whether any legal violations have been committed is, in itself, sufficient to avoid liability for fines or to recover any such fine from a subsidiary. Organisations that have not yet taken sufficient action in this area would benefit from offering their staff and directors targeted training and education in competition law. A well-structured compliance programme not only reduces the risk of breaching the cartel prohibition, but also strengthens the organisation’s position in any enforcement proceedings. Are you interested in compliance training courses, or do you have any questions on this subject or any other questions regarding competition law? Please do not hesitate to contact Arnout Koeman, Noa van den Brink, or one of our other competition law specialists.

On Tuesday, 2 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (”CJEU”) ruled in the case of Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Store Claims v. Apple. In this case, the plaintiffs claim that Apple abused its dominant position by retaining a 30% commission on purchases made through the App Store. According to the plaintiffs, this caused damage to users. The plaintiffs brought a case before the Amsterdam District Court on behalf of all affected users of the Dutch App Store under the Dutch Mass Claims Settlements Act (“WAMCA”). However, this case raised an important question: does the Amsterdam District Court have jurisdiction to hear such a dispute, given that the affected users are spread across Amsterdam and the rest of the Netherlands? Background Pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, a court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute if the harmful event occurred within its jurisdiction or if the damage occurred there. The Amsterdam District Court ruled that it had international jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the plaintiffs and Apple. The court determined that Apple’s abusive practices took place on Dutch territory because the App Store is specifically designed for the Dutch market and is offered in Dutch. Moreover, the damage occurred in the Netherlands: the increased prices were paid there by users with a Dutch bank account. However, the court had doubts about its territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the court referred questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. After all, there are eleven districts in the Netherlands within which different courts have jurisdiction. If Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 is strictly applied, users who suffer damage in the Netherlands because of Apple’s actions can only bring a claim before the court in the district where their damage occurred (i.e. often where they live). Such a strict approach would require the plaintiffs to file their collective claims with eleven different Dutch courts. The ruling  The CJEU stated that the NL App Store and certain apps offered there are specifically designed for the Dutch market. In addition, the language used in the Dutch App Store is Dutch. This means that the Dutch App Store constitutes a “virtual space” that can be equated with the entire territory of the Netherlands. The damage resulting from purchases made in this virtual space therefore occurred throughout the entire territory of the Netherlands, regardless of where the users concerned were located at the time of purchase. Any Dutch court that has jurisdiction to hear the dispute based on article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 therefore also has territorial jurisdiction to assess the entire dispute for all users. Such centralisation of jurisdiction in a single court is in line with the objectives of Regulation 1215/2012, specifically to improve access to justice and to prevent parallel proceedings on the same dispute. Implications of the Apple ruling for collective claims This ruling facilitates access to the courts for representative entities with exclusive standing, acting on behalf of large groups of individuals. When a representative entity initiates a collective action on behalf of a sufficiently defined group that has made purchases in a “virtual space”, any court in the country in which that space is offered has jurisdiction over the entire collective claim.  Do you have any questions about the ruling discussed above or collective actions? Please contact Arnout Koeman or one of our WAMCA specialists.