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

Linked authors

Herbert Smith Freehills (London)
General Court of the European Union (Luxembourg)
White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Brussels)
United State District Court (New York)
The Brattle Group (Washington)

Articles

1680 Bulletin

James Killick, Assimakis Komninos, Strati Sakellariou-Witt, Axel P. Schulz The UK Competition Authority closes its investigation into an allegedly abusive discount scheme in the pharmaceutical sector (Remicade)

336

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 (...)

Mark D. Powell, Axel P. Schulz, Jan Jeram The EU General Court holds that institutional investors can face parental liability for infringement of the EU competition law (Power Cables cartel)

35

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 (...)

Axel P. Schulz, James Killick, Jérémie Jourdan, Mark D. Powell The EU Court of Justice annuls a decision of the Commission requesting information on the ground that the decision did not sufficiently explain why the information requested was necessary (Italmobiliare, Schwenk Zement, HeidelbergCement and Buzzi Unicem)

695

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 (...)

Axel P. Schulz, Ian Forrester, Jacquelyn F. MacLennan The Advocate General Wathelet proposes to the EU Court of Justice to annul a judgement of the EU General Court in order to force it to exercice its full jurisdiction to review fines imposed by the Commission (Telefónica)

161

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 (...)

Axel P. Schulz, Morris Schonberg The EU General Court confirms that when a wholly owned subsidiary is sold to a new owner, that subsidiary and the previous owner remain jointly and severally liable for any competition law infringement that the subsidiary committed before the sale (Areva / Alstom)

353

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 (...)

Send a message