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 .

In the world of high-stakes mergers and acquisitions, even the best-laid plans can falter. Just ask Illumina and GRAIL, who recently found themselves at the center of an unprecedented European Commission fine—EUR 432 million, no less—for allegedly “jumping the gun.” While the Commission decision was later annulled by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on jurisdictional grounds, the case underscores a critical lesson for businesses: the risks of prematurely implementing a transaction before securing the necessary clearances are all too real. As companies venture into the German market, navigating both merger control and foreign direct investment (FDI) rules becomes even more complex. Knowing where to draw the line between preparation and premature action is essential. The stakes are high, and compliance with these frameworks is crucial to avoid costly penalties and safeguard the successful completion of M&A transactions.

The rise of digital business models has reshaped retail landscapes worldwide, fostering significant consolidation within various markets. Online platforms and e-commerce giants such as Amazon, Temu and Alibaba have leveraged their vast resources, extensive reach, and sophisticated data analytics to dominate market segments, often at the expense of smaller players. This consolidation trend poses significant challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) seeking to compete. SMEs, typically lacking the scale and technological infrastructure of their larger competitors, struggle to effectively navigate the competitive pressures imposed by digital giants. In addition, the advertising spend required to be only nearly as visible as the large rivals’ offerings among Google search results, is out of reach for many of these smaller players. Limited access to capital, constrained marketing budgets, and difficulties in adapting to rapidly evolving digital trends further exacerbate their challenges. As a result, SMEs face an uphill battle in maintaining market relevance and sustaining profitability.

Getting a free ride is not always easy and can be a long and bumpy journey. The recent judgment in the Booking.com case is a testament to this. Below, we summarize the twists and turns of this landmark case.

Over the summer, not only the EU has tightened its sanctions against Russia and Belarus (see our previous briefings here and here). The US has also imposed additional restrictions with a particular focus on certain hardware, software, and services (see, e.g., here and here). However, many of these new US restrictions have been part of the EU sanctions in one form or another for some time now. Still, it is often overlooked that these restrictions have a significant impact on IT and software products and can affect business relationships with customers outside of Russia and Belarus.

Starting December 30, 2024, the provisions of the EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR) will apply to large and medium enterprise operators. From that date, relevant commodities and products – including cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soy, and wood – may only be placed on the market, made available, or exported if they are deforestation-free. Additionally, they must have been produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production, and a due diligence statement must be submitted.

Belarus has supported its close ally Russia in its invasion of Ukraine from the outset. In response, the European Union (EU) imposed a first set of sanctions against Belarus as early as February 2022 - under the long-standing sanctions regime established in 2006 - and has regularly expanded the scope of restrictive measures against the country over the past two years. While some restrictions were already aligned with the Russia sanctions regime, the sanctions against Belarus, which were last amended in August 2023, did not keep pace with the development of the Russia sanctions. Until recently.

Companies from Western countries increasingly find that their (sanctioned) contractual partners from Russia are trying to circumvent arbitration clauses by resorting to Russian courts. In an order of 1 June 2023 (12 SchH 5/22), the Kammergericht (i.e., the Higher Regional Court of Berlin) shed light on topics surrounding these issues, affirming the admissibility of arbitral proceedings even though the Russian company had already lodged a claim in Russia. In addition, the Kammergericht provided clarifications on the service of legal documents when Russian authorities refuse to serve documents under international conventions. Important conclusions can be drawn from this decision for future proceedings, both for procedural and substantive issues.