Brasserie Nationale has lost its appeal against the decision to refer the acquisition of Boissons Heintz to EU merger review, dealing a setback to the Luxembourg-based brewer's attempt to keep the transaction within national competition proceedings.

The ruling confirms that the Boissons Heintz deal falls under the jurisdiction of the European Commission rather than a national competition authority. For a transaction of this kind, that allocation determines which notification regime, timetable and substantive test will apply — the Commission's merger control framework under the EU Merger Regulation, rather than a single member state's review.

What does the ruling change?

The appeal outcome closes off Brasserie Nationale's challenge to the referral process. The company had contested the routing of the transaction to Brussels-level review; the court has now rejected that challenge, leaving the EU referral standing.

For practitioners, the practical consequence is straightforward. Deals involving regional drinks businesses in Luxembourg can be pulled into the EU's merger control net where the referral criteria are met, and parties cannot rely on national-level review as a default. Counsel structuring transactions in the beverage and distribution sector should assess EU referral risk early, build it into deal timetables, and prepare notification files to Commission standards from the outset.

Why does jurisdiction matter here?

A referral to the European Commission changes more than the venue. It affects:

• the notifying party's procedural obligations and filing deadlines;
• the information-gathering powers available to the reviewer;
• the substantive competition analysis applied to the merged entity;
• the timeline for closing, given the Commission's phased review structure.

Brasserie Nationale, one of Luxembourg's established brewing groups, had sought to challenge the handling of the Boissons Heintz transaction — a deal involving a drinks distribution business — before EU institutions. That challenge has now failed at the appeal stage.

What comes next?

With the appeal lost, the referral stands and the transaction's review proceeds on the track the Commission's involvement dictates. Parties to similar regional acquisitions in the beverages sector will treat the case as a reminder that referral decisions can be contested — but, as here, unsuccessfully.

Companies weighing whether to challenge a referral should weigh litigation cost and delay against the limited prospects demonstrated by outcomes such as this one. The ruling reinforces the stability of referral decisions once taken, giving the Commission's jurisdictional assessments practical finality in most cases.

Note: This report is based on headline information from the original dispatch; detailed case references and quoted operative language were not available in the source material at the time of publication.