29.4.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/20

(1)

This case concerns a so-called ‘co-promotion’ agreement between the Dutch originator pharmaceutical company Janssen-Cilag BV, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter ‘J&J’) and the Dutch generic pharmaceutical companies Hexal BV and Sandoz BV, both of them subsidiaries of Novartis AG at the time of the alleged infringement (hereinafter ‘Novartis/Sandoz’). Pursuant to the agreement, the generic challenger would abstain from entering the Dutch market for the painkiller fentanyl.

(2)

On 30 January 2013, the European Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’). The parties received access to the file on 15 February 2013 and replied to the SO on 22 and 30 April 2013 respectively, after the Directorate-General for Competition granted a one- and two-week extension to the original deadline. The parties did not request an oral hearing.

(3)

In view of new arguments and facts received when the parties submitted their replies to the SO, the Commission issued a Letter of Facts on 17 October 2013, to which J&J replied on 30 October 2013 and Novartis/Sandoz, after the Directorate-General for Competition granted a short deadline extension, on 6 November 2013.

(4)

The draft decision concludes that the agreement between J&J and Novartis/Sandoz constitutes a violation of Article 101 TFEU.

(5)

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

(6)

In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected.