Government-to-government (G2G) contracts represent a popular tool among EU Member States to procure defence equipment and other sensitive goods as well as related works and services, such as capacity training or maintenance and logistical support. In particular, many EU countries frequently purchase equipment from the US through its Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Intra-EU defence trade is also common, with France and Germany being the Union's two largest sellers of defence and security goods and services. While such G2G contracts hold many advantages from a security policy point of view, they may negatively affect competition in the defence and security market for private operators. Nevertheless, such G2G transactions can be exempted from compliance with EU public procurement law.

In this second edition of BLOMSTEIN’s International Investment Law (IIL) briefing series, we look at how the EU’s sanctions against Russia are affecting existing investments in Russia and investment arbitrations against the Russian state. Meanwhile, our next briefing will look at the impact of Russia’s countersanctions on investors and their prospects for redress under IIL.

On 14 November, the European Parliament voted in favor of a 12-month postponement for the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). The approval aims to move the regulation's original application deadline of 30 December 2024 to 30 December 2025, and for micro and small enterprises, to 30 June 2026. However, this postponement is not yet final, as it still requires further debate in the trilogue negotiations involving the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

Foreign direct investments (FDI) have faced greater scrutiny in recent years, as states increasingly subject investment transactions to screening procedures due to rising geopolitical tensions and national security concerns. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the worsening climate crisis have prompted stronger and more frequent state actions. Regulatory measures and new security policies will likely impact existing and planned investments significantly. For instance, EU financial sanctions can directly affect the ability to control investments by investors subject to asset freezes and other restrictions. Russian “counter sanctions”, on the other hand, have included threats of expropriation to Western companies, with one machine tool manufacturer already reporting that the Russian government nationalized one of its plants.

As the global shift to sustainable energy continues to gather pace, the European hydrogen market offers unprecedented opportunities. Recent developments in Germany and the European Union highlight strategic advances in both production and infrastructure.

The Foreign Subsidies Regulation’s (FSR) concentration and public procurement tool came into force one year ago in October 2023. Its first year of application has shown that the European Commission is determined to make use of its new tools to tackle third-country subsidies distorting competition in the EU internal market. In this briefing, we provide an overview of the most important FSR rules and the lessons learned from their first application.

After many years in the shadows, the European defence industry has returned to the political agenda since Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. One of the ways to strengthen the domestic industry is to favour EU companies in defence procurement by EU Member States. A recent decision by the European Court of Justice has paved the way – with significant consequences for non-EU defence companies.

A recent decision brings new life to the question of compensation for unlawful conduct by the German MOD in Defence Procurements. As the German lawmakers decided in February 2022 to reduce the effectivity and the possibilities to seek the prevention of awards by way of single source procurements, competitors were effectively left to claim damages. However, chances of succeeding therein have always been difficult low. A recent ECJ decision might change that.

Empty supermarket shelves are an image German consumers have become quite used to over the recent years. Haribo gummy bears were no longer for sale at Lidl for a while, Dr. Oetker's pizza could not be shopped in Kaufland freezers and Mars stopped delivering EDEKA for a long time. It seems that increasing costs, e.g. for energy, transportation, production, have translated into price fights between manufacturers facing increased production costs on the one side, and retailers on the other, who try to keep price raises at bay knowing the hardship of passing them on to end consumers. What is interesting from a competition law perspective is that a number of these conflicts not only gained fairly high press attention but were even escalated to civil courts, where competition law arguments played a core role.

This briefing is the seventh and last in a series on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), where BLOMSTEIN addresses the key aspects that (in)directly affect businesses both within and outside the EU, explores its interplay with the existing legislation in Germany (LkSG) and examines interactions with other recently adopted EU legislation (e.g., EUDR and CSRD) which partially set overlapping obligations.

In today’s briefing, we examine the key considerations with respect to the EU’s corporate sustainability package for companies operating outside the EU but that have business ties in the EU. Specifically, we will address the direct and indirect impacts for non-EU companies of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and other related regulations mentioned along the series, including the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), as well as the upcoming Forced Labour Regulation and Green Claims Directive .