Ravi S. Mehta

Blackstone Chambers
Barrister

Ravi S. Mehta is a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers, London specialising in EU, competition, public law and human rights, employment, sport and media law and commercial litigation. Ravi was called to the New York Bar in 2010. He obtained an LLB in English and French Law (London) and a Master 1 en Droit français et anglais (Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne) on a joint degree programme, before spending a year at NYU as a Fulbright Scholar, obtaining an LLM in International Legal Studies. While at NYU, he worked as a Research Associate to Professor J.H.H. Weiler, and he has worked as a stagiaire (judicial assistant) in the General Court as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Articles

895 Bulletin

Ravi S. Mehta The UK High Court gives guidance in relation to State aid which may in fact make reliance upon State aid issues more “infrequent” and onerous than was previously the case (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors)

62

Of Megabytes and Men: the private use exception under the judicial lens and lessons for state aid claims* On 19 June 2015, the High Court allowed a claim for judicial review against the decision to introduce a narrow ‘private copying’ exception to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the (...)

Ravi S. Mehta The High Court of Justice of England and Wales holds that the trigger for the running of time for limitation purposes in a competition claim is not the discovery of every potentially relevant fact in the broadest sense (Arcadia)

150

“It’s too late baby, now it’s too late”: limitation, competition claims and knowledge* How much knowledge does a potential claimant need before time begins to run against a competition claim against a party alleged to have breached competition law? This was the key question addressed by Mr Justice (...)

Ravi S. Mehta The English High Court dismisses a competition law challenge to a disciplinary rule imposing sanctions for actions assessed to be inimical to the sport (Baker / The British Boxing Board of Control)

113

Avoiding the clinch: judicial respect for the rules inherent to sport* In a recent bout in the High Court, the specificity of sporting disputes once again came to the fore. In Bruce Baker v British Boxing Board of Control [2014] EWHC 2074 (QB), 25 June 2014, Sir David Eady was faced with the (...)

Ravi S. Mehta The Court of Justice of the EU rules that under article 4(3) TEU a national court must take into account the Commission’s statements of position on the meaning and consequences of a Commission Decision (Mediaset)

93

“What’s in a Commission Decision?” and other lessons for national courts* In a decision of 13 February 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) added a little gloss to an otherwise well-trodden path in relation to the binding aspects of a Commission Decision. For instance, it is (...)

Ravi S. Mehta The UK OFT issues statement of objections to four pharma companies alleging they acted to delay effective competition in the national supply of an antidepressant medicine (GSK / GUK / Alpharma / IVAX)

217

To fight or not to fight: pharmaceutical patent settlements* On 19 April 2013, the OFT announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections following its investigation into patent litigation settlement agreements (PLSAs) in the pharmaceutical sector. The underlying factual complaint related (...)

Ravi S. Mehta The England and Wales High Court rules that there was no contingent infringement of article 21 of the ECMR when the UK Competition Commission investigates an acquisition of a minority stake prior to a merger subject to the exclusive control of the European Commission (Ryanair / CC)

50

Anyone for another round? The Court of Appeal’s nuanced approach to the duty of “sincere cooperation”.* The duty of “sincere cooperation” set out in Article 4(3) TEU requires Member States to take appropriate measures to “ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting (...)

Ravi S. Mehta The EU General Court upholds a periodic penalty payment imposed by the Commission on an undertaking for failing to share adequate interoperability information (Microsoft)

58

“Imprecise legal concepts” are no excuse* The second chapter of the Microsoft saga unfolded on 27 June 2012, when the General Court largely upheld the €899 million periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft for failing to share adequate interoperability information with its competitors. (...)

Send a message