EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52021AT39686
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 November 2020 at 15.00–17.30 (CEST (Central European Summer Time (i.e., Brussels time).)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.39686 – Cephalon Rapporteur: Netherlands (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 32/05
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 November 2020 at 15.00–17.30 (CEST (Central European Summer Time (i.e., Brussels time).)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.39686 – Cephalon Rapporteur: Netherlands (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 32/05
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 November 2020 at 15.00–17.30 (CEST (Central European Summer Time (i.e., Brussels time).)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.39686 – Cephalon Rapporteur: Netherlands (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 32/05
C/2020/8153
OJ C 32, 29.1.2021, p. 5–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.1.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/5 |
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 November 2020 at 15.00–17.30 (CEST (1)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.39686 – Cephalon
Rapporteur: Netherlands
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 32/05)
(1)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees that the Parties were potential competitors.
(2)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees that the Parties’ conduct amounts to a restriction of competition by object with the geographic scope: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
(3)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees that the conduct amounts to a restriction of competition by effect with the geographic scope: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
(4)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive conduct covered by the draft decision does not meet the conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement.
(5)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the Settlement Agreement between Cephalon and Teva as outlined in the draft decision constitutes an anti-competitive agreement between undertakings that infringes Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
(6)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision as regards the duration of the infringement.
(7)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.
(8)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the determination of the fine for Cephalon.
(9)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the determination of the fine for Teva.
(10)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fines.
(11)
The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
(1) Central European Summer Time (i.e., Brussels time).