Beumer Group has asked the EU General Court to annul the European Commission’s refusal to examine Vanderlande’s €300 million acquisition of Siemens’ airport-logistics business. The challenge concerns regulatory jurisdiction over a transaction that has already been implemented for more than a year.
Siemens announced the sale two years ago to Vanderlande, a Dutch producer of baggage conveyors and parcel-sorting systems owned by Toyota Industries. German rival Beumer raised competition concerns in a market where airport baggage infrastructure combines specialized hardware, software and long service relationships.
Vanderlande sought clearance from regulators in Portugal and Spain in March 2026. Those authorities, joined by Italy, requested that the Commission take over the review, placing the question of the most effective regulator at the center of the case.
The Commission rejected the referrals in May. It considered an EU-level review inappropriate because the transaction had been completed more than a year earlier and said Portugal and Spain should continue their own examinations of the relevant market.
Beumer argues that the Commission lacks discretion to reject a referral when national competition authorities are not well placed to review a concentration effectively. Its central practical claim is that national watchdogs lack the power to unwind the completed acquisition.
The appeal therefore goes beyond this transaction’s competitive effects. It tests whether elapsed time and implementation can justify refusing a cross-border referral when several national agencies seek central review, and whether remedy capacity should determine which authority takes the case.
The Commission has said it is prepared to defend its decision. The court has not ruled on Beumer’s allegations, including its assertion that the rejection relied on legally irrelevant criteria. Proceedings at the Luxembourg-based General Court commonly take several years.
During that period, Vanderlande retains the acquired business while national reviews may continue. The next material step will be the court’s assessment of referral obligations; an annulment could reopen EU scrutiny, while dismissal would leave the deal’s examination fragmented among national authorities.
