Beevers Kaas BV v Albert Heijn België NV and Others (C-581/23)

Judgment of 8 May 2025

law://eu/cjeu/2023/c-581-23/para_29@2026-11-12

29In that regard, it should be noted, however, that the content of the Advocate General’s Opinion cannot constitute in itself a new fact, otherwise it would be possible for the parties, by invoking such a fact, to respond to that Opinion. The Advocate General’s Opinion cannot be debated by the parties. The Court has thus had the opportunity of underlining that, in accordance with Article 252 TFEU, the role of the Advocate General is to make, in open court, acting with complete impartiality and independence, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, require the Advocate General’s involvement in order to assist the Court in the performance of the task assigned to it, which is to ensure that, in the interpretation and application of the Treaties, the law is observed. Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 20 of that statute and Article 82(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Opinion of the Advocate General brings the oral part of the procedure to an end. The Opinion does not form part of the proceedings between the parties, but rather opens the stage of deliberation by the Court. It is not therefore an opinion addressed to the judges or to the parties which stems from an authority outside the Court, but rather, it is the individual reasoned opinion, expressed in open court, of a Member of the Court of Justice itself (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2021, Sumal, C‑882/19, EU:C:2021:800, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-581/23 · ECLI:EU:C:2025:323
Decided: 8 May 2025
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium)
Applicant: Beevers Kaas BV
Defendants: Albert Heijn België NV; Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize NV; Albert Heijn BV; Ahold België BV
Intervener: B. A. Coöperatieve Zuivelonderneming Cono
Rapporteur: K. Jürimäe
Advocate General: L. Medina
Bench: 5 judges
K. Jürimäe, K. Lenaerts, M. Gavalec, Z. Csehi, F. Schalin
Language: Dutch
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62023CJ0581

Topics

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices

Connections

See on a map

Interprets 1: Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 2: Umweltorganisation VIRUS – Verein Projektwerkstatt für Umwelt und Soziales and Others v Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung, Abteilung Landesstraßenplanung – ST3 (C-131/24); Duca di Salaparuta SpA v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste and Others (C-341/24)2 provisions
Cites 8: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L (C-882/19)2 provisions; Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (Text with EEA relevance); Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (Text with EEA relevance); Makedoniko Metro and Michaniki AE v Elliniko Dimosio (C-57/01); Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/720; Beevers Kaas BV v Albert Heijn België NV and Others (C-581/23); Super Bock Bebidas SA and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência (C-211/22)

History · 1 version

8 May 2025Reading

Judgment of 8 May 2025

29In that regard, it should be noted, however, that the content of the Advocate General’s Opinion cannot constitute in itself a new fact, otherwise it would be possible for the parties, by invoking such a fact, to respond to that Opinion. The Advocate General’s Opinion cannot be debated by the parties. The Court has thus had the opportunity of underlining that, in accordance with Article 252 TFEU, the role of the Advocate General is to make, in open court, acting with complete impartiality and independence, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, require the Advocate General’s involvement in order to assist the Court in the performance of the task assigned to it, which is to ensure that, in the interpretation and application of the Treaties, the law is observed. Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 20 of that statute and Article 82(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Opinion of the Advocate General brings the oral part of the procedure to an end. The Opinion does not form part of the proceedings between the parties, but rather opens the stage of deliberation by the Court. It is not therefore an opinion addressed to the judges or to the parties which stems from an authority outside the Court, but rather, it is the individual reasoned opinion, expressed in open court, of a Member of the Court of Justice itself (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2021, Sumal, C‑882/19, EU:C:2021:800, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).