Ian Forrester

General Court of the European Union (Luxembourg)

Ian Forrester is Judge at the General Court of the European Union. He was previously a Partner at White and Case where he advised companies, as well as sovereign states and other governmental authorities, industry associations and private individuals, on European Union law, especially competition law, trade law, customs, internal market rules, intellectual property and constitutional rights in a variety of sectors, including broadcasting, chemicals, information technology, pharmaceuticals, software and sport. Clients on whose behalf he has acted before national courts, national competition authorities, the European General Court and the European Court of Justice or the European Commission include the BBC, Canon, DuPont, the European Commission, GlaxoSmithKline, the Government of Gibraltar, the Liberal Democrat Party, Microsoft, Pfizer, Scottish Football Association, Toshiba, Toyota, UEFA and Union Carbide, as well as a number of private individuals. He has been involved in a number of leading cases, including Magill, IMS and Microsoft (compulsory licensing), Bosman (transfer of professional football players), Syfait v. GlaxoSmithKline (parallel trade), Pfizer Animal Health (the precautionary principle) and A. v. National Blood Authority (whether blood transfusions causing hepatitis C were a "defective" "product"). He also practiced trade law, having handled numerous customs and anti-dumping cases at both the administrative and appeal stages, as well as a number of WTO matters. He has served as an arbitrator in ICC and ICSID proceedings. Ian Forrester has particular experience representing individuals and companies on questions of human rights as recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Convention is respected both by the European Union courts in Luxembourg and the ECtHR in Strasbourg. Notable cases include defending an investigative journalist, Hans-Martin Tillack, against attempts to force him to reveal his sources, and a challenge to how the European Commission conducts competition cases. He has published a number of academic articles on the latter topic which has become increasingly important in light of the Lisbon Treaty, which from December 2009 made the case law of the Strasbourg court binding on the Luxembourg courts. He has acted in a number of other pro bono matters before the European courts on behalf of civil servants and their families. In 1981, Ian Forrester co-founded with Christopher Norall the Brussels EC law firm of Forrester & Norall, which subsequently became Forrester Norall & Sutton and merged with White & Case in 1998. Ian Forrester has written numerous articles and chapters on competition law, legal privilege, science and good regulatory practice, trade policy, customs and dumping.


Linked authors

US Chamber of Commerce
White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Brussels)
DG COMP (Brussels)
White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Brussels)
White & Case (Stockholm)
White & Case (Brussels)


Ian Forrester - New Frontiers of Antitrust 2016
Ian Forrester 13 June 2016 Paris


4413 Bulletin

The EU Commission publishes its 5th patent monitoring report


DG Competition of the European Commission just published its 5th patent monitoring report. It covers patent settlements entered into in 2013. Each year, the Commission claims that the report shows a “steady increase” of patent settlements in general, which supposedly would prove that the (...)

Art. 267 TFEU preliminary rulings: An overview of EU and national case law


As European competition law continues to prosper and as the European Commission continues to innovate, the role of the European Courts in Luxemburg continues to fascinate those who practice, teach or enforce. The Courts have an appellate function and a guidance function. In this foreword I will (...)

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)


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 (...)

Judicial review and competition law: An overview of EU and national case law


To be asked to contribute a foreword is pleasant, if that which is to be published is of good quality. Happily, such is the present case. e-Competitions, a child of this electronic century, has been publishing articles on competition topics since 2004. The mode of publication was so novel to me (...)

13320 Review

Antitrust judicial review: Highlights of EU and national case laws


The surge in demand for the application of competition law has created a need for the resolution of competition controversies; and a corresponding need for judicial review. This article provides highlights, if not a synthesis, of some 560 cases summaries which address to a greater or lesser (...)

Due process in competition proceedings


In 2009 and 2010, important fora decided to address the question of due process in competition proceedings. The USCIB, the ICC, the OECD, the European Commission and all the prominent business organizations in Europe have commented on this issue. This is the logical consequence of the high (...)

Alexander Gee, Bruno Lasserre, Charlotte Lousberg, Ian Forrester, Nadia Calvino, Nicolas Petit, Peter Freeman Sector inquiries: Complements or substitutes for antitrust enforcement? (New Frontiers of Antitrust Conference, 15th February 2010)


Sector inquiries: Complements or substitutes for antitrust enforcement? General introduction Frédéric JENNY President, OECD Competition Committee President of the International board of the Review Concurrences Professor, Co-Director of the Centre Européen de Droit et d’Economie, ESSEC, Paris (...)

Lisbonne Agenda and Competition Law


The European Commission tends to refer more and more to the Lisbon Agenda in various competition policy documents. The authors are of the opinion that such a tendancy is contrary to the objectives of the competition policy. Récemment, dans certaines de ses communications officielles en matière (...)


Send a message