Top EU court upholds Commission’s decision on anti-competitive behaviour in perindopril market

4 months ago 20

The EU’s Court of Justice (CJEU) has upheld a Commission decision from 2014 to fine companies involved in anti-competitive behaviour in the pharmaceutical sector.

In 2014, the Commission found that several companies had entered into restrictive agreements with Servier Pharmaceutical Group. Servier had put in place a strategy aimed at systematically removing competitive threats. The Commission held that Servier’s actions amounted to abuse of a dominant market position.

Servier developed and manufactured perindopril, a medicine used for the treatment of certain cardiac diseases, especially hypertension. The medicine was approaching the end of its patent, but Servier tried to extend its period of exclusivity by applying for new patents relating to changes in the manufacturing process.

Servier asserted its patent and entered into litigation with several companies that produced generic equivalents. They settled with the generic companies by offering large direct payments, which the Commission estimated to have exceeded €90 million.

In the case of one company (Slovenia’s Krka), Servier reached a market-sharing agreement, where Krka agreed not to compete in Servier’s largest markets. The Commission found that this amounted to a concerted practice to limit competition.

In its 2014 decision, the Commission had imposed fines totalling € 427 million on Servier (€ 330 million) and five generic companies (€ 97 million) for curbing entry of cheaper versions of perindopril.

In 2018, the General Court, a constituent court of the CJEU, annulled parts of a 2014 Commission decision, which the Commission appealed.

A Commission spokesperson told Euractiv that they had taken note of the CJEU’s ruling upholding the Commission’s appeal against the 2018 judgment of the General Court.

The Court found that the General Court had relied on incorrect grounds when it invalidated the Commission’s definition of the relevant market. It also found that in one agreement (Lupin), the General Court had made an error in how the fine was calculated and reduced it from just over € 37 million to nearly € 35 million.

[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]