Insights & news

Van Bael & Bellis successfully represents cable operators Nethys and Brutélé in proceedings against regulated wholesale tariffs for access to cable networks

  • 06/11/2017
  • News

On 25 October 2017, in four separate judgments, the Brussels Court of Appeal annulled two sets of decisions adopted in 2013 and 2016 by the Belgian telecommunications regulators. These decisions determine the wholesale tariffs applicable to the access to, and use of, cable operators’ networks by their competitors, such as Orange Belgium.

The four judgments are significant as they annul with retroactive effect all of the tariff rules imposed by the telecommunications regulators following the opening of the cable networks in Belgium in 2011.

More specifically, the Court found that the 2013 decisions lacked adequate reasons as the Belgian regulators had ignored the European Commission’s opinion on the draft decisions without explaining why they chose not to follow it. The Court also found fault with the regulators’ approach to consider Nethys and Brutélé as a single cable operator. Finally, the Court held that the 2016 decisions were also invalid as they relied on the annulled decisions of 2013 and were, in addition, based on an outdated analysis of the broadcasting market in breach of EU telecommunications law.

Van Bael & Bellis partner Peter L’Ecluse and associates Valérie Lefever, Eléonore Waterkeyn and Quentin Declève represented cable operators Nethys and Brutélé.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 19/11/2019
    • Newsletters

    VBB on Belgian Business Law, Volume 2019, No. 10

    The October 2019 issue of our Belgian Business Law newsletter reporting on the latest developments in a range of areas, including competition, data protection, intellectual property and labour law.

    Read more
    • 18/11/2019
    • Articles

    Medicine Shortages - Latest Developments Across Europe

    Medicine shortages remain a high-priority issue for governments across Europe. During the last few days, a new slew of measures and policy initiatives emerged. Norway On 7 November 2019, Norway notified to the European Commission (the “Commission”) proposed powers that would enable the Norwegian Medicines Agency to prohibit medicine wholesalers from making parallel exports of specific medicines if their continuous supply in Norway is at risk (see, attached notification). The notification is based on Directive (EU) 2015/1535 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services. This Directive also applies to the EFTA countries, including Norway, and allows the Commission, EU Member States and EFTA countries to offer their view on the compatibility of the proposed measures with European pharmaceutical law and with the free movement of goods principle. In this case, the consultation period runs until 10 February 2020. Norway stresses that medicine shortages form a growing problem of international dimensions in the face of which small countries such as Norway are nearly powerless. According to Norway, a tailored export prohibition on wholesalers is one of the few adequate and proportionate instruments available to protect the health of the local population. Portugal In Portugal, the Portuguese medicines agency Infarmed published new rules to manage medicine shortages (see, attached rules). They come in the wake of recent statutory powers that sought to strengthen access to medicines by reinforcing the public service obligation of the various stakeholders in the supply chain. (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 23 August 2019). Wholesalers must have at least one month’s worth of supplies, while medicine suppliers must ensure two months’ worth of supplies. Suppliers, wholesalers and pharmacies are required to notify the authorities of shortages within 24 hours of becoming aware of the issue, while suppliers with advance knowledge of an emerging shortage issue should notify the authorities at least two months ahead of the shortage. Belgium Belgium has taken a number of practical steps to confine the problem by creating an interagency database for medicines subject to shortages, intensifying the channels of communication between the supply chain stakeholders and generally raising awareness of the existing rules and obligations. At the same time, the Constitutional Court struck down a law limiting parallel exports of medicines as inadequate and incompatible with EU free movement principles (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 17 October 2019). As a result, there would seem to be a groundswell of opinion in favour of further measures tackling medicine shortages. For example, a number of members of parliament advocate for higher fines to be imposed on medicine suppliers that fail to comply with existing obligations. Additionally, tighter supply obligations are also under consideration. Meanwhile, the caretaker government is also understood to work on a draft Royal Decree. Medicine shortages are now a politically charged subject and this is illustrated by the lengthy report which the chamber of representatives of the federal parliament just made publicly available. The report covers three hearings on medicine shortages which took place over the last few months before the parliament’s committee on health and equal opportunities (see, attached report). Europe Even though the incoming Commission will not take office until 1 December 2019 at the earliest, it now looks certain that medicine shortages will be high on its healthcare agenda. As a first step, officials of Directorate General SANTE have reportedly already earmarked a study that would look at harmonised rules governing supply obligations, notifications of shortages and monitoring systems. A further study would analyse parallel trade and market withdrawals.

    Read more
    • 05/11/2019
    • Articles

    Dutch Competition Authority Will Clarify Guidelines on Joint Purchasing of Medicines

    The Dutch competition authority announced yesterday that it would clarify its 2016 guidelines on the joint purchasing of medicines (“Leidraad gezamenlijke aankoop geneesmiddelen voor de medisch-specialistische zorg” - – the “Guidelines”). It did so in response to an assessment of the Guidelines carried out by “Strategies in Regulated Markets”, a consultancy (the “Assessment” – see attached). The Guidelines were designed to encourage the joint purchasing of medicines by a range of hospitals, a group of insurers or a combination of hospitals and insurers. They are supposed to offer a safe haven for specific forms of cooperation on the buying side of medicines. According to the Assessment, the Guidelines have increased the dynamics of oligopolistic medicine markets but have also added a layer of complexity to cooperation. As a result, the net effect of the Guidelines on competition in such markets is limited. By contrast, the Guidelines have had a larger impact, including price reductions, on monopolistic medicines. Conversely, the Guidelines had no stimulating effect on the market for medicines in full competition, because these markets work well and joint purchasing of such medicines has existed for decades. On this basis, the Assessment advocates for a broader safe haven which will bolster competition in the markets where the mechanics of competition are still imperfect. For example, the Assessment recommends the possibility for buyers to exchange more information regarding medicines. Additionally, the Assessment identifies non-competition related obstacles to the efficient buying of medicines. These include the fact that there is still no consensus on the switching of patients between therapeutically equivalent medicines. Similarly, buyers do not have reliable information on the relevant costs of the medicines which they procure.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *