Ian Forrester

General Court of the European Union (Luxembourg)
Former Judge, EU General Court

Ian Forrester has been a practitioner, author, academic teacher and judge. He has lectured on EC/EU legal and policy topics in many countries and published extensively on these themes, particularly competition, customs, dumping, pharmaceuticals, sport, the precautionary principle, and human rights. Honorary Professor and Honorary Doctor of Laws (2009) at Glasgow University, he was appointed Queen’s Counsel (1988), and Bencher, Middle Temple (2012). He is currently President of the Society of Franco British Lawyers. In April 2015 he was nominated by the UK to be a member of the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union and was sworn in later that year. His mandate came to an end with Brexit in February 2020. While on the Court, he sat on about 230 cases touching trademarks, competition, terrorist asset freezes, agricultural subsidies, state aids, public procurement, and civil service disputes. In each case, he sat with judges from 12 different countries in formations of three or five. Deliberations were conducted in French, the working language of the court. He was appointed a member of the newly created deontology committee of the court and participated in drafting the court’s first Code of Conduct for judges, dealing with such matters as judicial conduct, possible conflicts and recusals, and the handling of hearings. He represented the court on missions to other countries as well as participating in the collective running of a court serving 28 countries with 24 official languages, employing 2,200 people. When a practising lawyer he participated in cases before courts or competition authorities in the UK, Belgium, Greece, Kosovo, Japan, France, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, USA, Serbia as well as the European institutions in Brussels and the three EU courts in Luxembourg. He was a member of the Bars of Scotland, New York, England and Brussels. He argued several leading cases in the fields of football, computer software, pharmaceuticals, vehicles, health and safety regulation, state aids and publishing. These include Magill (compulsory copyright licensing); Bosman (football transfers); Microsoft (computer servers); IMS (compulsory licensing); Pfizer Animal Health (the precautionary principle); Government of Gibraltar v Council (constitutional status of Gibraltar Airport); GlaxoSmithKline (parallel trade in pharmaceuticals); Les Laboratoires Servier (settlement of patent disputes); Chalkor/Halcor (due process and judicial review); Canon (dumping); A and Others v National Blood Authority (whether a blood transfusion with undetectable hepatitis can be a ‘defective’ product); Bellona Foundation v EFTA (environmental protection). He was also involved in several European Court of Human Rights cases, including forcing a citizen to speak on pain of punishment even if the answer itself reveals punishable conduct (Al Fayed and Harrods: Fayed v The United Kingdom); press sources (Hans Martin Tillack: Tillack v Belgium); prisoner’s rights (Kalashnikov v Russia); fair trial and right to property (Karic and Djordjevic). He helped to achieve the liberation of Louis Henry Burns, an indigent prisoner on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in New York from a conviction based upon a coerced confession. He established the pro bono programme of White & Case He has been involved in at least thirty arbitration matters, either as advocate for a party, or as expert witness on European law, or as arbitrator, from 1983 to 2014. The arbitrations have mostly been conducted under the auspices of the ICC in Paris, or the CAS in Lausanne; and once before the ICSID in Washington. The ICC cases involved disputes about investment contracts, trade secrets, hotel construction, stolen technology, and a variety of other commercial conflicts. The CAS matters involved player transfers, treatment of injured players, broadcasting rights and the conduct of elections to governing bodies. The ICSID matter involved a shipping register and the respective duties of those affected by civil insurgency.

Distinctions

Linked authors

White & Case (Brussels)
French State Council (Paris)
Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (Madrid)
European University Institute (Florence)
UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (London)
DG COMP (Brussels)
Liège University
JPTT-Vitale (Paris)

Videos

Ian Forrester (General Court of the EU)
Ian Forrester 14 June 2019 Paris
Ian Forrester - New Frontiers of Antitrust 2016
Ian Forrester 13 June 2016 Paris

Articles

5667 Bulletin

Ian Forrester, Nicholas Forwood Due process in European law: a post-judicial view

582

We each began professional life as advocates, zealous in our support of the causes upon which we were engaged. Each of us had the huge good fortune to work on big cases with good teachers, giants of the bar, and then the even huger fortune to work in professional maturity with skilled (...)

Assimakis Komninos, Ian Forrester, James Killick The EU Court of Justice holds that parent companies may be fined for repeated infringements even without being an addressee of the earlier decisions (Versalis)

736

On 5 March 2015, the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handed down its judgment in Versalis , concerning the increasing of fines for antitrust infringements where a company is found to be a repeat offender. The judgment raises important questions about the respect for the rights of defence in EU (...)

Axel P. Schulz, Ian Forrester, Jacquelyn 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)

179

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 (...)

Assimakis Komninos, Ian Forrester, Jacquelyn MacLennan, Kai Struckmann, Mark D. Powell, Pontus Lindfelt The European Commission adopts a package on private damages actions in antitrust cases

173

This article has been nominated for the 2014 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Summary On 11 June 2013, the European Commission (“Commission”) adopted a proposal for a directive on how citizens and companies can bring damages claims under EU (...)

Axel P. Schulz, Ian Forrester, Mark D. Powell The EU Court of Justice Advocate General Sharpston voices opinion on the standard of judicial review over fines in cartel cases (KME)

134

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 (...)

13637 Review

Ian Forrester Antitrust judicial review: Highlights of EU and national case laws

1350

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 (...)

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)

3201

Enquêtes sectorielles : Complément ou substitut de l’action des autorités de concurrence ? Introduction générale 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, (...)

Assimakis Komninos, Ian Forrester Lisbonne Agenda and Competition Law

5552

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. Recently, in some of its official communications on Community (...)

Books

Send a message