On December 10, 2025, the General Court confirmed the Commission’s decision to reject Bategu Gummitechnologie’s antitrust complaint against certain train manufacturers for allegedly colluding to circumvent EU standards and abusing their alleged collective dominant position by boycotting Bategu’s products.[1]
Background
Bategu is a manufacturer of metal and rubber anti-vibration components for use in railway vehicle bogies. Bategu claimed that it had developed a technical solution that complied with EU standard EN 45545‑2:2013, which sets out fire performance requirements for materials and components used in the manufacture of railway vehicles.
Bategu claimed that Siemens AG Österreich, Bombardier Transportation, Stadler Bussnang, Alstom Transport Deutschland, and Plasser & Theurer (the “OEMs”)—railway vehicle manufacturers that, according to the complainant, “dominated the relevant European market”[2]—infringed Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by (i) colluding in arguing that there were no suitable components complying with the EU standard (and opting to choose other non-compliant components), and (ii) abusing their collective dominant position to boycott Bategu’s components. The Commission formally rejected Bategu’s complaint in February 2023 on insufficient grounds.
The Judgment
Bategu appealed the Commission’s rejection decision to the General Court, which dismissed the appeal. The General Court noted that the Commission was required to examine whether there was unlawful coordination between OEMs to boycott Bategu’s products (through a concerted practice aimed at disregarding the provisions of EU law on fire prevention in railway vehicles), but correctly concluded that the OEMs had provided other plausible explanations for their conduct.[3] These included: (i) Siemens not contacting Bategu because of its past negative experience with Bategu in other projects;[4] (ii) Bombardier and Stadler not reaching an agreement with Bategu during the bidding stage of its projects e.g., because Bategu asked for a downpayment before submitting an offer;[5] (iii) Alstom’s purchasing division being unaware of Bategu’s products;[6] and (iv) Plasser & Theurer not manufacturing vehicles that had to comply with the EU standard at issue.[7]
In doing so, the General Court recalled that a company is free to determine its own commercial strategy,[8] and that even if Bategu could prove that the OEMs violated the applicable EU standard by not using its components, such a violation could not in itself constitute anticompetitive behavior or establish an intention to boycott Bategu’s products if there are other plausible explanations for a collective refusal to purchase.[9]
Key Takeaways
The case offers helpful clarifications on the interaction between industry standards and competition law. Notably, mere discussion between undertakings about the interpretation or application of industry standards does not, without more, constitute anticompetitive conduct, while a collective refusal to purchase from a supplier does not automatically constitute a collective boycott if the prospective buyers have alternative plausible explanation for their conduct.
[1] Bategu Gummitechnologie v. Commission (Case T-219/23) EU:T:2025:1095 (“the Judgment”). See here for the text in French/German.
[2] The Judgment, para. 10.
[3] The Judgment, paras. 62 and 122.
[4] The Judgment, para. 95.
[5] The Judgment, para. 110.
[6] The Judgment, para. 87.
[7] The Judgment, para. 92.
[8] The Judgment, para. 75.
[9] The Judgment, para. 77.