giovedì 22 settembre 2016

Segnalazione da Competition Weekly e-News

Cases T-472/13,T-460/13,T-467/13,T-469/13, T-470/13 Lundbeck, Sun, Arrow Group, Generics, Merck vs. European Commission (The Lundbeck case)
8/9/2016 - The Commission welcomes the General Court's jugments which upheld the Commission's Lundbeck decision (cases T-472/13, T-460/13, T-467/13, T-469/13, T-470/13, T-471/13) and ruled for the first time that pharma pay-for-delay agreements breach EU antitrust rules. In such agreements an original pharmaceutical manufacturer pays generics producers to stay out of the market. 
The Commission's decision found that the Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck and four generics competitors had concluded agreements that harmed patients and health care systems. 
This allowed Lundbeck to keep the price of its blockbuster drug citalopram artificially high, in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
The decision imposed a fine of €93.8 million on Lundbeck and fines totalling €52.2 million on the four generics competitors, Generics UK, Arrow, Alpharma and Ranbaxy.

Fact sheet/Memo
See also :

Case T-54/14 Goldfish (Heiploeg) vs. European Commission (Shrimps case)

8/9/2016 - The Commission welcomes the judgment by the General Court, which upholds the Commission's assessment of the North Sea Shrimps cartel for Goldfish and other entities of the Heiploeg group. 
In November 2013, the Commission fined Goldfish and other entities of the Heiploeg group €27 million for operating a long-term cartel in breach of EU antitrust rules (see IP/13/1175). 
The Commission found that Heiploeg and other North Sea shrimps traders bilaterally discussed a wide range of aspects of their business, including their purchase prices from fishermen, conduct towards other traders on the market, market sharing, and prices charged to specific important customers that often set the benchmark price for other customers.
Case C‑101/15 P Pilkington Group vs. European Commission (Appeal)
8/9/2016 - The court of justice ruled on an appeal against a ruling in the carglass-cartel. 
The appellant argued against the initial findings of the court regarding an earlier appeal. The court dismissed the appeal in full.

Nessun commento:


WebRadioScout Player