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.

Staatliche Zuwendungen und Beihilfen setzen Anreize, die vielen Unternehmen die Umsetzung bestimmter Vorhaben überhaupt erst ermöglichen. Allerdings sind öffentliche Gelder knapp, so dass Subventionen nur solchen Unternehmen gewährt werden, die sie tatsächlich zur Erfüllung des mit der Förderung verbundenen Zwecks benötigen. Zudem bringen staatliche Zuwendungen die Gefahr einer Wettbewerbsverzerrung mit sich, weshalb sie nur im Ausnahmefall und unter strengen rechtlichen Voraussetzungen zulässig sind. Erfüllt ein Unternehmen diese Voraussetzungen nicht, besteht nicht nur die Gefahr, dass ihm eine Förderung versagt wird. Unternehmen, die in der Vergangenheit eine unzulässige Zuwendung erhalten haben oder gegen Förderbedingungen verstoßen, können dazu verpflichtet sein, diese zurückzuzahlen – auch Jahre später, nachdem die Mittel längst „aufgebraucht“ sind. Im schlimmsten Fall kann sogar eine Strafbarkeit wegen Subventionsbetrugs drohen.

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.

Bei der Series-A-Finanzierungsrunde des Startups Quantum Optics Jena GmbH mit einem Gesamtvolumen von 8,5 Mio. Euro hat BLOMSTEIN gemeinsam mit lindenpartners den VC-Fond und Lead-Investor Join Capital erfolgreich unterstützt. Das BLOMSTEIN-Team um Roland Stein hat hierbei zu investitionskontrollrechtlichen Aspekten beraten.

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.