Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 2 results.

Aspen: The European Commission’s First Decision on Excessive Pricing in the Pharmaceuticals Sector journal article

Kalpana Tyagi

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 6 (2022), Issue 2, Page 173 - 179

Case AT.40394 Aspen, Commission Decision of 10 February 2021 On 10 February 2021, the Commission entered into a settlement decision with Aspen under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The Commission investigated 'excessive pricing' by the South Africa-headquartered Aspen in six off-patent cancer drugs in the European Economic Area (EEA). These drugs had been off-patent for well over 50 years, and there seemed no rational prima facie justification for their unfairly high prices. This case note offers a critical discussion on the Commission’s case and Aspen’s well-planned strategy to systematically and uniformly increase prices across the Member States.


Commitments and Protection of Third-Party Contractual Rights: The CJEU Overturns for the First Time a Commitments Decision in the Canal + Judgment (C-132/19 P Canal +) journal article free

Michael Tagliavini

European Competition and Regulatory Law Review, Volume 5 (2021), Issue 3, Page 330 - 334

Case C-132/19 P Groupe Canal + v Commission, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2020 On 9 December 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered a seminal judgment (Judgment) in Groupe Canal + v Commission and clarified that the Commission is not entitled to accept commitments having an adverse effect on pre-existing contractual rights of third parties. The case is extremely relevant given that it constitutes one of the few instances where the CJEU has reviewed a commitment decision and because of its possible implications for the Commission’s commitments policy. The Judgment also provides relevant clarifications with reference to the Alrosa ruling.

  • «
  • 1
  • »