With the recent decision given by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State on 24 May 2021,[1] the administrative fine given to the Turkish Pharmacists Association (“TPA”) by the Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) on the grounds that some of its decisions and practices violated Article 4 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of…

The Netherlands Authority for the Consumer and Markets’ (“ACM“) announced focus on drug price developments has finally come to a tangible enforcement result: a fine of almost EUR 20 million imposed on Leadiant, manufacturer of the orphan drug CDCA-Leadiant. This penalty decision follows the announcement by the ACM in 2018, repeated in2020 and 2021, that…

We are happy to announce the new International Law Talk Podcast episode on EU competition law developments in the pharmaceutical sector. And this one is twice as good! Not only are we discussing both competition and IP issues, but I also interviewed two leading experts in the field: Michael Clancy and David Hull from Van…

On 25 March 2021, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) dismissed all the appeals against the European Commission’s decision to fine Lundbeck and several other companies for entering into anti-competitive patent settlement agreements.1 The judgments largely repeat the position taken by the ECJ in its January 2020 Paroxetine judgment (see our alert). They notably confirm…

What are commitments? The recent effort by the Commission to settle the Aspen case suggests that commitment decisions are the preferred route to settle complex excessive pricing cases at EU-level.  Previous commitment cases where high prices have been at issue include Rambus, Standard & Poor’s and Gazprom.  The EU rules allow the Commission to make…

Introduction Servier v. Commission (Case T‑691/14) is the second decision of the General Court of the European Union on “pay-for-delay” patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry,[1] following the 2016 decision of the Court on Lundbeck v. Commission (Case T-472/13).[2] In 2014, the European Commission imposed fines totalling €427.7 million for violations of European competition laws…

Introduction On 27 September 2018, Turkish Competition Authority (“TCA”) published its decision[1] concerning the allegations that Roche Müstahzarları A.Ş.  (“Roche”) had violated articles 4 and 6 of the Law on the Protection of Competition (“Competition Act”). Within this scope, the TCA re-evaluated whether (i) Roche’s agreement with a pharmaceutical wholesaler, Co-Re-Na Ecza Deposu Dış. Tic….

Throughout the last year, the topics of globalization in the markets and digitalization of economy were extensively discussed within the governmental authorities and business community in Russia. One of the major concerns of the authorities and business community was development of competition in “digital era”. The Federal Antimonopoly Service (‘FAS Russia’) has found its pivotal…

Introduction I recommend reading the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (CAT) decision in Flynn/Pfizer vs UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) as both lawyers and economists can find a fair number of details to note for later cases related to excessive pricing. In this short article I do not wish to argue whether the CMA’s methodology…

Summary On 7 June 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) held that the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) misapplied the relevant legal test when finding that Pfizer and Flynn Pharma (Flynn) unfairly priced their epilepsy drug. The CAT quashed the record £84.2 million and £5.2 million fines that the CMA imposed on Pfizer…