There have been several recent interesting competition cases in the EU, and we asked a select group of contributors to opine on those they found intriguing. First, we have two diverse opinions on what appears to be a double standard in a CJEU decision on de minimus. Then we ask how the Commission can ask to be treated as two distinct entities, sometimes in a public and sometimes in a private competition enforcement role. We follow by diagnosing an OFT case of food frenzy and, finally, we get an update on the never-ending Pfizer case in Italy. Hope everyone is having a great summer!
-
Update: European Competition Case Law
Relying on EU Soft Law Before National Competition Authorities: Hope for the Best, Expect the Worst
When assessing the effects that EU soft law might have at the national level, the CJEU is reluctant to use similar arguments to those that it uses when admitting the effects of such instruments in EU enforcement settings. Oana Stefan (HEC Paris)
EU Court Narrows Scope of the De Minimis Principle
The Expedia case, while in line with the CJEU’s recent jurisprudence both widening the scope and hardening its interpretation of Article 101, runs somewhat counter to the modern trend that has witnessed the increasing influence of economics on competition law enforcement policy. Cormac Little (William Fry – Dublin)
Now the Commission Wants Compensation Too The Commission as Private Damages Claimant and Its Implications
Is the Commission to be treated as two distinct entities, pursuing public and private competition enforcement roles respectively? Ruchit Patel & Paul Stuart (Cleary Gottlieb)
Bitter Sweet The OFT’s Recent Approach to Food Mergers
A brief comparison of the OFT’s approach in the Barrs/Britvic and Nakano/Premier cases is instructive, as despite finding competition concerns in both cases, the nature of the OFT’s analysis was quite different. Richard Blewett (Clifford Chance)
Where Is the Italian Supreme Administrative Court Going in the Never-Ending Pfizer Latanoprost Saga?
It should be obvious to all that know even a little of patent law, that the validity (and, even before, the dignity) of a divisional patent is not based on the fact that it will purport the development or launch of a new product. Daniela Ampollini (Trevisan & Cuonzo)
