The base of your SAP migration case
just moved.
Case AT.40823 is a European Commission commitments decision, adopted on 9 July 2026 under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) 1/2003. SAP offered commitments, the Commission made them binding for ten years, with no finding of abuse or infringement. They apply globally, cover on-premise software and maintenance, and carry an independent monitor. Cloud is out of scope.
Coverage lands on on-premise, not the cloud.
On-premise software and maintenance
- Binding decision
- 10 years, global reach
- Independent monitor
- All on-premise products
Cloud subscriptions
- SAP Cloud ERP Private (formerly RISE with SAP)
- SAP Cloud ERP Public (formerly GROW with SAP)
- Terms unchanged by the decision
That is why the decision re-prices the on-premise side of the bill: it lands on the very asset a migration proposal asks you to abandon.
The decision moves three levers on your on-premise maintenance base.
- A
Split by installation
The all-or-nothing perimeter is no longer a single block.
Within any Commercial Installation that keeps SAP support, the model stays indivisible. Between distinct installations, each can now take its own path: keep SAP support, adopt a different model, use a third-party provider, or run without support. Splitting, and then leaving one installation without SAP support, does not re-price the licenses; maintenance is then calculated only on the installations that stay under SAP support.
Conditional on: an installation number of its own, at least one productive and one non-productive system, the required technical components, and auditable alignment between licenses and systems. Processing takes up to six months, effective at the start of the next quarter (1 Jan, 1 Apr, 1 Jul, 1 Oct).
- B
Reduce in specific scenarios
Four reduction grounds, each with its own rule.
Without effecting a split and without re-discounting, reduction is available on four grounds: end-of-life products, a failed implementation where the responsibility is on SAP, insolvency, and a workforce drop of 10% or more over two years (retroactive to 1 January 2025), which allows reducing up to 10% of user licenses and the associated maintenance, once every two years. Divestiture has its own track. Above EUR 500,000 in fees, a Single Metric Contract calculates the maintenance base on one agreed metric, with an audited-underutilization true-down of up to 20% per year on that base.
Each ground is bounded to its scope: the workforce ground gives a reduction of up to 10%, not open-ended termination; the failed-implementation ground covers SAP responsibility only.
- C
Exit and re-entry became predictable
The cost of returning now has a cap.
The reinstatement fee is waived. Back-maintenance is capped at the lower of 50% of the fees due for the off-support period or six months of the installation fees. For certain legacy products under a dedicated license, defined by SAP and updated at least once a year, back-maintenance is waived in full.
This changes the economics of dropping to third-party or no support during deliberation and reinstating later: re-entry is bounded, not open-ended.
Non-compliance can carry a fine of up to 10% of worldwide annual turnover, though it is not automatic. Every figure above comes from the Commission's own decision. Sources are listed at the end.
Coverage lands on the asset the migration asks you to abandon. It does not necessarily say stay: it moves the base of comparison, and the right move is to re-price that base before the next negotiation.
The Alkemia read
The structural protection is the end of re-discounting on the reduction levers.
Historically, reducing volume re-discounted the base, which made shrinking the on-premise estate self-defeating. On the reduction levers the commitments name, a customer shrinks the maintenance base without losing the volume discount on what stays. The do-nothing floor drops, and the alternative of retaining the legacy estate becomes more credible, which is the asset the next negotiation's leverage is built on. A split carries its own, narrower protection. Outside the split and the reduction levers, the penalty still stands: the route chosen decides the economics.
Splitting has a cost of its own. Satellites such as MDG in a hub, BW, or a separately installed HCM split cleanly; the ERP core is one SAP does not recommend splitting, and doing so is at the customer's own risk. Where separation requires carving out scope that is not already a standalone technical system, the carve-out is sized and built like a new installation, and part of the maintenance saving returns as CAPEX and OPEX. The commitments do not make staying the right answer: the S/4HANA horizon still frames the move. They change the floor of the alternative, and therefore the price the cloud proposition has to beat. A legitimate business case remains the criterion.
Five things to check in your SAP maintenance terms.
- 01
Commercial Installation boundaries
Can your landscape be partitioned into separate installations, and does each part you would separate carry its own installation number, a productive and a non-productive system, and auditable alignment between licenses and systems?
- 02
Development and test topology
For any ERP scope you would separate, does each resulting installation have its own development and quality environment? Systems that share a single central dev-and-test instance are treated as unsplittable.
- 03
Applicable reduction route
Which route applies to your case, and what does each one protect? The public commitments text treats the routes differently. Under a split (§14), licenses are not re-priced and maintenance is then calculated on the installations that stay supported. Under the four grounds and divestiture (§20, §23 and §24), the commitment is explicitly without re-discounting, meaning the volume discount is not lost when the base is recalculated. Outside those routes, reduction falls under the partial-termination policies the commitments only reference (§19 and Annex 4).
- 04
Reinstatement and back-maintenance
If you dropped and later returned to support, is the reinstatement fee waived and back-maintenance capped at the lower of 50% of the off-support fees or six months of installation fees? Are any of your products on the dedicated-license full-waiver list?
- 05
Reduction and Single Metric eligibility
Do your terms reflect the four reduction grounds (end-of-life, SAP-responsible failed implementation, insolvency, a workforce drop of 10% or more over two years) and, above EUR 500,000 in fees, the Single Metric Contract option with an audited true-down of up to 20% per year?
Each point carries a condition. Validate eligibility case by case with legal, licensing, and technical support before acting.
Re-price your alternative of staying, in 30 minutes.
The number, in your case, is in your contract: which rights you already hold, under what conditions, and at what real cost of separation. A 30-minute, no-commitment call maps what AT.40823 changes in your specific position, and whether a scoped diagnostic to re-price the alternative of staying is worth your time.
Discuss your decisioncontact@alkemia.io
Every figure here traces to the Commission's own decision.
AT.40823, in decision terms.
- What is case AT.40823?
- A European Commission commitments decision adopted on 9 July 2026 under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) 1/2003, in force since 10 July 2026, that makes binding a set of adaptations to SAP on-premise maintenance and support practices. It applies globally to current and future customers, across all on-premise products, for ten years, with an independent monitor and no finding of abuse or infringement.
- Does it change SAP cloud subscriptions (RISE, GROW, Cloud ERP)?
- No. The commitments are on-premise only, and SAP has stated the decision does not concern its cloud offerings. Coverage lands on the on-premise estate, not on SAP Cloud ERP Private (formerly RISE with SAP) or SAP Cloud ERP Public (formerly GROW with SAP).
- Does it apply outside the European Union?
- Yes. The commitments apply globally to all current and future SAP customers, across all on-premise products, for ten years from the decision. A customer in Latin America or elsewhere holds the same rights.
- Does staying on-premise become the right answer?
- Not by itself. The commitments lower the cost and raise the predictability of the on-premise alternative; they do not remove the reasons to modernize. The decision they change is the base of comparison: the stay-alternative should be re-priced, with the real cost of any split embedded, before the next negotiation.
- Where do I start?
- Check your own contract and Support Schedule against the five points above, then re-price the stay-alternative with those rights and their conditions embedded. Eligibility depends on your contract and current SAP policies; validate case by case with legal, licensing, and technical support.
Eligibility and design depend on the contract, the Support Schedule, and current policies; before acting, validate the case with legal, licensing, and technical support.
Informational content on the final commitments in case AT.40823, published by the European Commission on 9 July 2026. It does not constitute legal, contractual, or licensing advice, and does not guarantee eligibility, savings, or a negotiation outcome. Application depends on each customer's contract, SAP Support Schedule, policies, architecture, and documentation. SAP and the SAP product names mentioned are trademarks of SAP SE or its affiliates. Alkemia and Alexandre do not speak on behalf of SAP.