

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE No 80/25 
Luxembourg, 2 July 2025 
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-289/24 | Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen v Commission 
Merger control: the General Court upholds the Commission’s decision to 
examine, at the request of Luxembourg, the acquisition of Boissons Heintz 
by Brasserie Nationale (Munhowen) 
Since information limited to the mere existence of a concentration does not constitute ‘making known’ within 
the meaning of EU law, Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen have not shown that the request for referral had 
been submitted out of time 
Brasserie Nationale, a Luxembourg company producing beer and mineral water, owns Munhowen, its 100% 
subsidiary, which specialises in the wholesale distribution of beverages in Luxembourg and in the border regions of 
France and Belgium. 
On 22 December 2023 and 10 January 2024, Brasserie Nationale informed the Competition Authority of the Grand 
Duchy of Luxembourg (‘LCA’) of its intention to acquire sole control of Boissons Heintz – a Luxembourg company 
engaged in the wholesale distribution of beverages – through Munhowen, which intended to acquire all the shares 
in that company. 
Since the relevant turnovers were not met, that concentration did not have a European dimension and therefore did 
not have to be notified to the European Commission. Moreover, in the absence of a merger control system in 
Luxembourg, there was no obligation to notify on that basis in that Member State. Nor was that concentration 
notified in another Member State of the European Union or in any of the States party to the Agreement on the 
European Economic Area (EEA), since it did not meet the relevant national thresholds. 
On 7 February 2024, the LCA requested the Commission, pursuant to Article 22 of the Merger Regulation, 
1
 to 
examine the concentration at issue. 
2
 On 14 March 2024, the Commission granted that referral request. It 
considered that the concentration could affect trade between Member States and threatened to significantly affect 
competition within the territory of Luxembourg. It would, it was argued, deprive beer and drinks producers 
established in other Member States, not having a distribution network through the sales channel for direct 
distribution, of access to the Luxembourg market. 
Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen challenged that decision before the General Court of the European Union. They 
seek the annulment of that decision in its entirety, in particular because they consider that the referral request was 
submitted out of time. Indeed, it was, allegedly, submitted without complying with the deadline of 15 working days 
from the date on which the concentration was ‘made known’ 
3
 to the Member State concerned, as provided for in EU 
law. 
By today’s judgment, the General Court dismisses the action brought by Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen. 
4 
It finds that the ‘making known’ of the concentration must consist of an active transmission of relevant and 
sufficient information to the competent authority of the Member State concerned. That transmission must enable 
those authorities to assess whether the concentration in question, without having a European dimension, affects 

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Stay Connected! 
trade between Member States and threatens to significantly affect competition within the territory of the Member 
State making the request. 
The General Court adds that mere information relating simply to the existence of the concentration does not 
satisfy the conditions relating to making that concentration known. It follows that the period of 15 working days 
cannot begin to run until such complete information has been transmitted to the Member State concerned. 
In addition, the General Court states that the Commission was right to establish the date of 17 January 2024 as 
being the point from which that period started to run. Indeed, Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen have not shown 
that, before 17 January 2024, they had provided sufficient information to enable the ACL to assess the conditions of 
the proposed concentration. In that regard, the General Court adds that the national authorities could not be 
required to take positive steps once informed of the existence of the concentration. Nor are they required actively 
to seek information on the concentration at issue or on the undertakings concerned. 
Furthermore, the General Court states that the Commission, which has a margin of discretion in that regard, was 
fully entitled to consider it appropriate to grant the referral request. It recalls that Article 22 of the Merger 
Regulation enables Member States not having national merger control rules to request the Commission to scrutinise 
concentrations that may have adverse effects in their territory, where those concentrations also affect trade 
between Member States. 
Since Luxembourg does not have a merger control system, the concentration at issue and its effects would not have 
been caught by any other merger control system if the referral request had not been accepted. 
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are 
contrary to EU law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, 
bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act 
is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act. 
NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of 
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision. 
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court. 
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of 
delivery. 
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆  (+352) 4303 3355. 
Images of the delivery of the judgment are available on ‘Europe by Satellite’ ✆  (+32) 2 2964106. 
 
 
 
 
1
 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’). 
2
 Regulation No 139/2004  enables  Member  States not  having national  merger  control  rules  to  request  the  Commission  to  scrutinise  concentrations 
that  may  have  adverse  effects  in  their  territory,  where  those  concentrations  also  affect  trade  between  Member  States.  It  should  be noted in  that 
regard that Luxembourg is the only Member State not having a merger control system at national level. 
3
 In  the  absence  of  an  obligation  to  notify  that  concentration in Luxembourg,  the  point  from  which  the  period  of  15  working  days  for  submitting  a 
referral request starts to run is, in the present case, the date on which the concentration at issue was ‘made known’ to the Member State concerned. 
4 
In so doing, the General Court refers in particular to the judgment of 3 September 2024, Illumina and Grail v Commission, C-611/22 P and C-625/22 P 
(see also press release No 127/24). 

EU Court Upholds Merger Review Request for Brasserie Nationale's Acquisition

The General Court of the European Union has ruled in case T-289/24, affirming the European Commission's decision to examine the acquisition of Boissons Heintz by Brasserie Nationale, which is a subsidiary of Munhowen. The court found that the request for referral from the Luxembourg Competition Authority was timely and valid.

 Brasserie Nationale, a company based in Luxembourg that produces beer and mineral water, intended to acquire Boissons Heintz, a company involved in beverage distribution. The acquisition was not initially subject to European merger control due to insufficient turnover thresholds, and Luxembourg lacks a national merger control system.

 The Luxembourg Competition Authority requested the European Commission to review the acquisition under Article 22 of the Merger Regulation, citing potential adverse effects on competition and trade within the EU. The Commission agreed to the referral, stating that the merger could significantly impact competition in Luxembourg.

 Brasserie Nationale and Munhowen contested the Commission's decision, arguing that the referral request was submitted beyond the 15-working-day deadline stipulated by EU law. However, the General Court clarified that the 'making known' of the concentration requires active communication of relevant information, which had not been sufficiently provided before the deadline.

 The court concluded that the Commission acted within its discretion to accept the referral request, emphasizing that without such a review, the merger's effects would not be scrutinized due to the absence of a national merger control framework in Luxembourg.



EU Court Upholds Merger Review Request for Brasserie Nationale's Acquisition

The General Court of the EU has upheld the Commission's decision to review Brasserie Nationale's acquisition of Boissons Heintz, rejecting claims that the referral request was submitted late.