Samuel Hall is an associate with Van Bael & Bellis based in the firm’s Brussels office where he focuses on EU competition law as well as EU regulatory law. Before joining Van Bael & Bellis, Samuel worked in the Brussels and London offices of a well-known international law firm advising mainly on EU and UK competition law issues, gaining particular experience in the pharmaceuticals sector. During his time as a trainee in London, Samuel also gained valuable experience of pharmaceutical patent litigation. Samuel has also worked as a research assistant at the University of Sheffield.
599
On 29 July 2021, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) imposed fines totalling more than £101 million on Advanz Pharma and previous owners, Cinven and HgCapital, for charging excessive and unfair prices for liothyronine tablets – a treatment for hypothyroidism (see Press Release). (...)
384
On 20 July 2021, the ACM announced that it had imposed a fine of € 19,569,500 on Leadiant for abusing its dominant position by charging excessive prices for chenodeoxycholic acid-Leadiant (“CDCA”), a medicine indicated for the treatment of patients suffering from cerebrotendinous (...)
207
On 15 July 2021, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) imposed fines of more than GBP 260 million on the hydrocortisone tablet suppliers, Auden Mckenzie and Actavis (now named Accord-UK) for charging excessive and unfair prices and for paying potential rivals to remain out of the (...)
250
On 15 July 2021, the CMA imposed fines of more than £260 million on the hydrocortisone tablet suppliers, Auden Mckenzie and Actavis (now named Accord-UK), for charging excessive and unfair prices and for paying potential rivals to remain out of the market (see CMA Press Release). CMA Chief (...)
426
On 18 June 2021, the Dutch competition authority, Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM), announced that it would prepare guidelines to counter “vendor lock-in” in information technology systems for the healthcare sector, principally hospital information systems and electronic patient files. (...)
476
On 10 May 2021, the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) issued its final decision in GSK (Paroxetine) – the long-running saga concerning pay-for-delay patent settlement agreements between GSK and several generics. The CAT upheld the Competition and Markets Authority’s (“CMA”) finding of (...)
657
On 2 April 2021, the Austrian competition authority accepted commitments and closed its case concerning pricing strategies alleged to unlawfully hinder entry by generic competitors. According to the authority’s press release, the investigated pricing strategy concerned the product Temodal (...)
1276
On Monday 29 March 2021, the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition (the Commission) published its second “new style” comfort letter. It was addressed to the organisers of an online “matchmaking event” that runs on 29 and 31 March 2021 and brings together more than 300 (...)
492
On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed all appeals against the decision of the European Commission (the Commission) to fine Lundbeck and four generic pharmaceutical companies (Alpharma, Arrow, Merck, and Ranbaxy) for concluding “pay-for-delay” patent (...)
501
On 18 March 2021, the Official Journal of the European Union published a European Commission (Commission) Notice on “tools to fight collusion in public procurement and on guidance on how to apply the related exclusion ground” (see, attached copy; the Notice). The Notice develops the tools (...)
414
1. Background of Case On 18 March 2021, the Italian highest administrative court, the Consiglio di Stato (the CS), decided to refer a case under its review for the second time to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. The case finds its origin in a (...)
485
On 18 March 2021, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) delivered its judgment in Pometon SpA v European Commission (Case C-440/19) in connection with the Steel Abrasives cartel case. In its judgment, the ECJ partially upheld the appeal in so far as it found that the General Court had breached (...)
166
On 10 February 2021, the Commission announced that it had accepted a series of pricing and supply commitments from Aspen, thereby bringing an end to its investigation into whether Aspen had infringed Article 102 TFEU by charging excessive prices for six off-patent cancer medicines. Having (...)
272
In February 2021, the European Commission’s (“Commission”) long-running excessive pricing case against Aspen was brought to a close, with Aspen accepting a series of forward-looking pricing and supply commitments, but avoiding any fines or requirements to repay all of the higher prices charged (...)
301
On 18 December 2020, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) announced that it had accepted Essential Pharma’s commitments to continue supplying a bipolar medicine to the UK market. Essential Pharma is a supplier of both Priadel and Camcolit, long-term treatments for individuals (...)
180
On 18 November 2020, the General Court (“GC”) issued its judgment confirming the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision to fine Lithuanian Railways for the abuse of its dominant position on the Lithuanian rail freight market. The GC rejected all of the appellant’s complaints, but (...)
119
On 7 October 2020, the European Commission accepted Broadcom’s commitments to suspend its existing agreements, and to refrain from entering into any new agreements, containing exclusivity or quasi-exclusivity arrangements and/or leveraging provisions concerning Systems-on-a-Chip (“SoCs”) for (...)
266
On 9 September 2020, Advocate General (“AG”) Saugmandsgaard Øe issued his opinion in Deutsche Telekom v. European Commission (Case C-152/19) and Slovak Telekom v. European Commission (Case C-165/19) advising the Court of Justice (“ECJ”) to dismiss the parties’ challenges to the Commission’s (...)
315
Background On 9 September 2020, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) imposed a fine of € 444 million on Genentech, Novartis and Roche for abusing their collective dominant position on the market for the commercialisation of drugs for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (...)
