Insights & news

European General Court Dismisses Medicines Dual Pricing Complaint Thus Allowing GSK To Avoid New Probe

  • 27/09/2018
  • Articles

The European General Court (“GC”) dismissed on 26 September 2018 a 1999 complaint filed by EAEPC, the industry association of parallel traders in medicines, that had urged the European Commission (the “Commission”) to resume its investigation of a “dual pricing” scheme operated by GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in Spain. Under the scheme, the prices which GSK charged to wholesalers differed depending on whether the medicines were resold in Spain under regulated prices or were exported abroad free from pricing constraints.
 
GSK had been the subject of a Commission competition procedure which in 2009 had resulted in a verdict of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) that the dual pricing scheme had as its object the restriction of competition and thus infringed Article 101 (1), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). The ECJ went on to declare that the Commission had not carried out a full examination of the arguments put forward by GSK in favour of an exemption of the scheme pursuant to Article 101 (3), TFEU.
 
Following the ECJ’s judgment, the Commission started its analysis of the scheme under Article 101 (3), TFEU and in 2012 also opened an investigation of alleged dual pricing practices in Spain by other firms. But in May 2014 the Commission decided to reject the 1999 complaint for lack of a sufficient Union interest in a continued investigation of the alleged competition law infringements. This is because (i) GSK’s conduct under scrutiny had ceased many years ago; (ii) that conduct did not produce enduring effects; and (iii) the case had been handled by national competition authorities and courts as well.
 
As noted, the EAEPC took steps to have the inquiry against GSK re-opened, but the GC has now confirmed the rejection of the complaint. EAEPC immediately indicated that it would consider filing an appeal to the ECJ.

Before the GC, the EAEPC challenged the Commission’s findings as inconclusive, questioned the absence of sufficient Union interest and characterised the reasoning underlying the decision as flawed.

In response, the GC considered that the EAEPC had failed to adduce evidence disproving the Commission’s findings.

It furthermore noted that the Commission had broad discretion in determining a matter to be in the Union interest. While the case may bear a “special feature” due to a Commission decision that was subject to two European judgments adopted by the ECJ and the GC, the GC noted that the ‘special feature’ evoked by EAEPC does not prevent the Commission from concluding that there is no sufficient Union interest based on the Commission’s three considerations cited earlier.

By the same token, the GC also rejected EAEPC’s position that the Commission failed to examine and state reasons for its conclusion, as the Commission’s decision clearly indicates that the disputed dual pricing scheme had been suspended and that GSK had refrained from implementing it.

Lastly, the GC stressed that the rejection of the complaint was not tantamount to an authorisation of export restrictions in Spain. It supported the Commission’s position that “the fact of not adopting a decision on an infringement cannot in itself be determinative of the self-assessment carried out by the undertakings under Article 101 (3), TFEU”. The GC specified that self-assessment should be based on current market conditions and not on a decision rejecting a complaint for lack of Union interest in a specific historical context.

The ECJ’s judgment is available at this link.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 14/01/2020
    • Articles

    OECD Makes Recommendations for Improvement of Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Medicines

    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) published a health working paper (the “Paper”) authored by Martin Wenzl and Suzannah Chapman that offers recommendations for the use of performance-based managed entry agreements in OECD countries and EU Member States (see, attached). The Paper reflects the results of a review of managed entry agreements (“MEAs”) carried out in 2018 and 2019. MEAs are arrangements between healthcare payers and pharmaceutical firms that provide for the reimbursement of generally new health technologies, including medicines, while controlling the financial impact of that reimbursement and keeping price concessions confidential. These financial agreements are thus tools for achieving patient access to medicines while managing uncertainty. A further group of MEA’s, far less common than these purely financial agreements, are performance-based contracts. Both financial MEA’s and performance-based MEA’s can be assessed either at the level of individual patients or at that of a given population. The Paper indicates that the experience with performance-based MEA’s is both limited and mixed. This is in large part due to the dearth of available information as few countries have formally assessed their experience with performance-based MEA’s. The Paper therefore relies on limited public sources and a number of expert interviews. Only Belgium and Sweden had independent evaluations conducted by third parties. The tentative conclusion of the Paper is that performance-based MEA’s have made only a limited contribution towards reducing uncertainty regarding product performance. This is why the Paper makes recommendations for good practices that make it more likely for performance-based MEA’s to reach their objectives. These are: i. to use performance-based MEA’s strategically and in the wider context of information derived from the use of other instruments such as horizon-scanning; ii. to identify uncertainties and design the performance-based MEA’s to address such uncertainties; iii. to create a governance framework that ensures transparency of process and guarantees that results are actually acted upon; iv. to ensure an appropriate level of transparency of content, even though some parts of the MEA’s, such as prices, may have to remain confidential. The Paper points out that countries could benefit from sharing information but very little information is at present published or shared. Still, the Paper cites approvingly a number of collaborative initiatives of the European Medicines Agency such as the EU-wide framework on patient registries or the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance.

    Read more
    • 13/01/2020
    • News

    Brussels Court of Appeal Confirms Infringement of Competition Rules by Professional Organisation of Pharmacists but Directs BCA to Recalculate Fine

    On 8 January 2020 the Market Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal confirmed a finding of the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) that the professional organisation of pharmacists had infringed the competition rules. However, it also directed the BCA to recalculate the fine which is now expected to turn out significantly lower. Please find attached a note on the judgment as well as its text.

    Read more
    • 10/01/2020
    • Articles

    MEP Cindy Franssen Raises Important Questions Regarding Medicine Shortages in European Union

    Member of the European Parliament Cindy Franssen submitted to the European Commission (the “Commission”) a series of interesting questions regarding medicine shortages (see, attachment). Broadly, the questions probe for (i) possible violations of Directive 2001/83/EC if pharmaceutical firms “caus[e] shortages [of medicines] on the basis of commercial decisions”; (ii) the measures which the Commission plans to take to tackle shortages; and (iii) the proposals which the Commission intends to put forward in order to enhance local production of medicines. While some of these questions exhibit bias against the pharmaceutical industry, they are likely to prompt important answers from the Commission in relation to (i) the public service obligation associated with supplying medicines as contained in Article 81 of Directive 2001/83/EC; (ii) the initiatives which the Commission will take to address medicine shortages (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 26 November 2019 and Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 11 September 2019); and (iii) calls made in various circles to make sure that the production of key pharmaceutical ingredients is moved to Europe (see for example, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 9 July 2019).

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *