Infringement of EU Law meaning

Using this Checklist This Checklist concentrates on the IP elements of R&D agreements and pinpoints the principal provisions commonly found in such contracts. It serves as a list of points to address when drafting, reviewing or negotiating these agreements. It also touches on central competition law issues. Nevertheless, a case-by-case analysis is required to confirm that an agreement’s IP clauses align with competition rules, notably the bans on anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998). On 1 June 2023, the European Commission adopted the EU Research & Developments Block Exemption, Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1066 (EU R&D BER), together with the related Horizontal Guidelines. The EU R&D BER took effect on 1 July 2023 and will lapse on 30 June 2035. On 5 December 2022, the UK government placed before Parliament the Competition Act 1998 (Research and Development Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2022 (UK R&D BEO), SI 2022/1271. The UK...

Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...

Antitrust Commission penalises Eurofield and Unanime Sport €172,000 for incomplete information in synthetic turf sector probe The Commission stated it has imposed fines totalling about €172,000 on Eurofield SAS (Eurofield) and Unanime Sport SAS (Unanime Sport), the ultimate parent of Eurofield at the time of the infringement, for submitting an incomplete response to an information request issued as part of its ongoing inquiry into a possible infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Background On 7 June 2023, the Commission revealed that it had carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the synthetic turf sector across several Member States. It explained that the inquiry concerns synthetic turf for sports use and noted its concerns that the inspected companies may have breached Article 101 TFEU. In the course of this investigation, the Commission also sent requests for information to the companies under investigation, including Eurofield...

Antitrust Commission fines Alchem for participating in pharmaceutical cartel The Commission delivered an infringement ruling, levying penalties of €489,000 on Alchem for taking part for over 12 years in a cartel tied to the pharmaceutical ingredient N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (Case AT. 40636)...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-806/19 P and C-883/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment dated 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016, which found infringements and levied fines on three banks that did not settle, due to their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, largely confirming the Commission’s conclusion that HSBC Holdings plc took part in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Nonetheless, the General Court set aside the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc because the Commission provided ‘insufficient reasons’ for the methodology used to calculate that penalty...

Practice Note Use this Practice Note to identify the governing law before the courts of England and Wales for harmful events that took place between 11 January 2009 and 31 December 2020. Where incidents happened outside those dates, the UK courts will apply an alternative choice-of-law regime, and the regime engaged turns solely on the date of the occurrence. If the date falls outside that span, a different regime applies, selected by reference to timing of the event. For direction on those regimes and how they interrelate, see Practice Note: Applicable law regimes. It summarises the special rules governing particular heads of claim under Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The topics include product liability, unfair competition and restraints on free competition, environmental harm, intellectual property (IP) rights, industrial action, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio—i.e. agency without authority, and culpa in contrahendo—fault in forming a contract, as well as insurance...