Axel P. Schulz
White & Case (Brussels), White & Case (Dusseldorf)
Lawyer (Partner)
Axel Schulz has been involved in a broad range of EC and German competition law matters. During his work on merger control under both EU and German law he has dealt with collective dominance and countervailing buyer power, as well as structural links issues in industries including paper and pulp, aluminum, electricity generation and distribution and pharmaceuticals. His recent deals include cases M.4418 — Nycomed/Altana (pharmaceuticals), M.3435 — Lyondell/Millennium (base and specialty chemicals), M.3179 — Sapa/Remy Claeys (aluminium extrusion) and M.2499 Norske Skog/Haindl (newsprint and magazine paper — Phase II investigation). Mr. Schulz has particular proficiency in the pharmaceutical industry, where he advises on competition law issues in the fields of distribution, co-marketing, licensing and other kinds of vertical and horizontal cooperation agreements. He represented GSK in a number of cases before the European Courts in Luxembourg, including case T-168/01 (GSK Spain — dual pricing), case C-501/06 (GSK Spain — appeal of case T-168/01 — pending), case C-53/03 (Syfait) where he also assisted in proceedings before the Hellenic Competition Committee and joined cases C-468/06 to C-478/06 (rerun of Syfait — pending). In addition to pharmaceuticals, Mr. Schulz has been involved in a number of important competition cases before the European Courts, including cases T-65/98 and C-552/03 — Van den Bergh Foods v. Commission (ice cream freezer exclusivity), case T-113/07 — Toshiba v. Commission (appeal of GIS cartel decision — pending), case T-21/05 — Halcor v. Commission (appeal of plumbing tube cartel decision — pending). He regularly advises companies on cartel investigations and has implemented many antitrust compliance programs for multinational companies.
Distinctions
Nominee, 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Procedure
Nominee, 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Mergers
Nominee, 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Unilateral Conduct
Nominee, 2018 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Unilateral Conduct
Nominee, 2017 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Mergers
Nominee, 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Private Enforcement
Nominee, 2015 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Mergers
Winner, 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Private Enforcement
Winner, 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Anticompetitive Practices
Linked authors
Morris Schonberg
Herbert Smith Freehills (London)
Ian Forrester
General Court of the European Union (Luxembourg)
Mark D. Powell
White & Case (Brussels)
Jacquelyn F. MacLennan
White & Case (Brussels)
James Killick
White & Case (Brussels)
Jérémie Jourdan
White & Case (Brussels)
Jed Saul Rakoff
United State District Court (New York)
Shaun D. Ledgerwood
The Brattle Group (Washington)
931 | Conferences
Articles
2117 Bulletin
96
Last week, in response to the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the antitrust agencies in the United States and European Union issued policies that will affect, and may delay, merger filings and reviews. On March 13, 2020, the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade (...)
89
COVID-19 is changing our lives more rapidly and more profoundly than we could have ever imagined. All over the world, governments order their countries into lockdowns, factories stop producing, people stop buying, citizens are confined to their four walls and businesses switch to working (...)
407
The CMA Remicade decision: discount schemes and abuse of dominance – effects matter!* Summary On 14 March 2019, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decided to close its investigation into a discount scheme by Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited (MSD). The CMA concluded that there were (...)
58
On 12 July 2018, the EU’s General Court handed down 12 judgments relating to the power cables case. Among these was a judgment which confirmed that a parent company able to exercise all the voting rights in a subsidiary is presumed liable for any infringement of the EU competition rules by that (...)
776
Introduction On 10 March 2016, the European Court of Justice issued a landmark ruling annulling European Commission decisions requesting information from cement manufacturers, on the ground that the decisions did not sufficiently explain why the information requested was necessary . This (...)
170
The level of fines imposed by the European Commission in competition cases has attracted controversy for more than ten years. The often deferential approach of the European courts to hearing appeals has also been criticised, but in many cases the courts have largely left untouched the (...)
401
In a judgment delivered on 3 March 2011 in Cases T-117/07 Areva v European Commission and T-121/07 Alstom v European Commission, the General Court of the European Union (the ‘Court’) the Court confirmed the general rule that when a wholly-owned subsidiary that has infringed competition law is (...)
120
This article is the winner of the business category, anticompetitive practices section of the 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. In an Opinion delivered on 10 February 2011, Advocate General (‘AG’) Sharpston of the European Court of (...)
