EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CJ0588

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021.
Generics (UK) Ltd v European Commission.
Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Pharmaceutical products – Market for antidepressants (citalopram) – Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of 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-588/16 P.

Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2021:242

 Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 – Generics (UK) v Commission

(Case C‑588/16 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Pharmaceutical products – Market for antidepressants (citalopram) – Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of 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 31-40)

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. 66)

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 67-73, 80)

4. 

Competition – EU rules – Substantive scope – Amicable agreement on patents – Included – Balancing of patent law and the competition rules

(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003)

(see paras 76, 77)

5. 

Competition – EU rules – Infringements – Committed intentionally or negligently – Meaning – Undertaking not capable of being unaware of the anti-competitive nature of its conduct – Agreement concluded between an originator company and a generic medicine undertaking – Reverse payments disproportionate in character and combined with an exclusion of competitors from the market – Included

(Art. 101 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 5 and 23(2))

(see paras 91, 135-140)

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the appeal.

2. 

Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs 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.

Top