[ad_1]
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld a 2014 decision by the Commission to fine companies involved in anti-competitive behavior in the pharmaceutical industry.
In 2014, the Committee Establishment Several companies entered into restrictive agreements with the Servier Pharmaceuticals Group. Servier developed a strategy aimed at systematically eliminating competitive threats. The Commission concluded that Servier’s conduct constituted an abuse of its dominant position.
Servier developed and manufactured perindopril, a drug used to treat certain heart conditions, especially high blood pressure. The patent on the drug was about to expire, but Servier sought to extend its exclusivity by applying for a new patent related to a change in the manufacturing process.
Servier asserted its patents and entered into litigation with several companies producing generic drugs. They reached settlements with generic drug companies by offering large direct payments, which the Commission estimated to be more than €90 million.
In the Slovenian case of Krka, Servier entered into a market-sharing agreement whereby Krka agreed not to compete in Servier’s largest market. The Commission found that this amounted to concerted practice that restricted competition.
In its 2014 resolution, the Commission imposed fines totaling €427 million on Servier (€330 million) and five generic companies (€97 million) to prevent the entry of cheaper perindopril.
In 2018, the Commission appealed against a 2014 ruling by the General Court, a constituent court of the European Court of Justice, which set aside parts of the Commission’s decision.
A spokesperson for the European Commission told Euractiv that they had taken note of the ECJ’s decision. ruling Supported the Commission’s appeal against the General Court’s 2018 judgment.
The Court found that the General Court relied on incorrect grounds when overturning the Commission’s definition of the relevant market. The Court also found that in one agreement (Lupin), the General Court made an error in calculating the fine and reduced the amount of the fine from just over €37 million to almost €35 million.
(Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic)
Read more by Euractiv
[ad_2]
Source link
