Beumer Group Sues EU Commission Over Vanderlande-Siemens Logistics Deal

German logistics company Beumer Group has launched a legal challenge against the European Commission, suing the regulator for its decision not to conduct an antitrust review of a major acquisition in the airport logistics sector, according to court documents.

Commission Rejects Review

The dispute centers on the acquisition of Siemens' (ETR:SIEGn) airport logistics division by Vanderlande, a transaction valued at €300 million ($341.31 million) that was announced two years ago. Vanderlande, a Dutch manufacturer of luggage conveyor systems owned by Japan’s Toyota Industries, had sought regulatory approval in Portugal and Spain in March.

Following this, the national competition authorities in those countries, along with Italy, requested that the European Commission take over the review. However, the EU's top competition authority rejected these requests in May, stating the deal was not suitable for an EU-level assessment because it had been completed for more than a year.

Beumer's Legal Arguments

In its court filing on July 17, Beumer argued that the Commission's refusal was a legal error and has asked the court to annul the decision. As a competitor in the market, Beumer has raised concerns about the competitive impact of the transaction.

Ad

The company's filing asserts that the Commission should not have the discretion to reject a referral when national regulators are "not well placed to review the concentration effectively." Beumer also noted that national agencies do not have the authority to reverse a deal that has already been closed for a significant period.

Context and Implications

The European Commission has maintained that the national agencies in Portugal and Spain should proceed with their own examinations of the market impact. The case highlights the procedural complexities of EU merger control, particularly regarding post-completion reviews and the jurisdictional boundaries between the Commission and national member state regulators.

The outcome of the lawsuit could have implications for how similar cross-border deals are scrutinized long after they have been finalized, especially when competitors raise late-stage objections.