This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CJ0586
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission.
Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Pharmaceutical products – Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) – Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines – Article 101 TFEU – Potential competition – Restriction by object – Characterisation – Calculation of the amount of the fine.
Case C-586/16 P.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission.
Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Pharmaceutical products – Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) – Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines – Article 101 TFEU – Potential competition – Restriction by object – Characterisation – Calculation of the amount of the fine.
Case C-586/16 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2021:241
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 – Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission
(Case C‑586/16 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Pharmaceutical products – Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) – Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines – Article 101 TFEU – Potential competition – Restriction by object – Characterisation – Calculation of the amount of the fine)
1. |
Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment – Description of an undertaking as a potential competitor – Real or concrete possibilities of entering the market – Criteria – Firm intention and inherent ability of the undertaking to enter the relevant market – Sufficient preparatory steps to enter the relevant market – No insurmountable barrier – Assessment – Existence of a process patent (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see paras 35-46) |
2. |
Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment – Distinction between restrictions by object and by effect – Restriction by object – Sufficient degree of harmfulness – Assessment (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see para. 68) |
3. |
Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Adverse effect on competition – Amicable agreement on patents – Agreement concluded between an originator company and a generic medicine undertaking – Agreement to delay the entry of the manufacturer of generic medicines into the relevant market – Consideration consisting in transfers of value – Characterisation of a restriction by object – Criteria – Assessment of whether transfers of value act as an incentive to refraining from entering the market (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see paras 69-74) |
4. |
Competition – Administrative procedure – Limitation period for fines – Point from which time starts to run – Single and continuous infringement (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 25) (see paras 106-109) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the appeal. |
2. |
Orders Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
3. |
Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.