Life Sciences & Healthcare

On May 16, 2019, the French Conseil constitutionnel validated most of the provisions of the law on business growth and transformation (“loi relative à la croissance et la transformation des entreprises” or “PACTE law”), but deemed that the provisions relating to the transposition of the ECN+ directive into French law violated the Constitution.

On May 16, 2019, the Conseil Constitutionnel issued a decision on the conformity with the French Constitution of various provisions of the Law on the growth and the transformation of companies (“Loi Pacte”).[1] The Conseil censured several provisions of that law for the lack of connection with the initial bill. These included in particular Article 211, which provided the Government with the power to transpose the directive ECN+ into French law, and adopt various measures meant to strengthen the efficiency of procedures implemented by the FCA.

On May 9, 2019, the German Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) ruled that access to the preparatory notes (so-called “opinions”) of the rapporteurs of the FCO’s decision divisions under the German Freedom of Information Act is restricted, because public access to the rapporteurs’ opinions would jeopardize the decision divisions’ deliberation process.[1] The FAC thus ultimately confirmed the FCO’s denial of a journalist association’s access request to information on one of the FCO’s merger assessments, including access to the rapporteur’s opinions.

On May 9, 2019, the German Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) ruled that access to the preparatory notes (so-called “opinions”) of the rapporteurs of the FCO’s decision divisions under the German Freedom of Information Act is restricted, because public access to the rapporteurs’ opinions would jeopardize the decision divisions’ deliberation process.[1] The FAC thus ultimately confirmed the FCO’s denial of a journalist association’s access request to information on one of the FCO’s merger assessments, including access to the rapporteur’s opinions.

In May 2019, the CMA obtained competition disqualification undertakings (“CDUs”) from three individuals for involvement in a cartel relating to…

On 17 April 2019, the High Court ruled on the extent to which factual findings of the General Court of the European Union are binding on claimants in follow-on damages actions before UK national courts. This case concerns damages claims against Servier, following the European Commission’s 2014 infringement decision, which found that Servier had abused a dominant position and entered ‘pay for delay’ agreements with rivals.

On December 11, 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) held that, at least in relation to quota fixing and customer allocation cartels, plaintiffs could no longer rely on prima facie evidence to establish that a cartel infringement led to causal damage.[1] The FCJ accepted, however, a factual presumption (tatsächliche Vermutung)— softer compared to prima facie evidence—that cartels would lead to an overcharge, and held that such a presumption was of “high indicative significance”. Since then, lower courts have rendered a number of judgments and struggled with applying the new evidentiary standard in practice.

As the charts below show, enforcement by concurrent competition agencies has increased substantially since the ERRA came into force.[1]…

In November 2013, David Currie – then Chairman of the CMA – identified the low volume of competition cases in regulated sectors: “These sectors account in total for some 25% of the economy. They are also typically characterised by monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures. This might suggest the need for more, rather than less, competition enforcement than in other parts of the economy.”[1]