Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)

Samuel Hall

Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
Lawyer (Associate)

Samuel Hall 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.

Linked authors

Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)

Articles

1036 Bulletin

Michael Clancy, Samuel Hall, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The Austrian Competition Authority accepts commitments and closes its pharmaceutical pricing investigation on the sale of a brain tumor treatment (Merck Sharp / Dohme)

46

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 (...)

Michael Clancy, Samuel Hall, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The EU Commission issues a second competition comfort letter in support of pharmaceutical cooperation to combat COVID-19

26

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 parties (...)

Michael Clancy, Samuel Hall, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The EU Court of Justice dismisses appeals by several manufacturers of medicines regarding pay-for-delay patent settlement agreements (Lundbeck)

20

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 (...)

Michael Clancy, Samuel Hall, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The EU Commission publishes a notice on how to fight collusion in public procurement and on guidance on how to apply the related exclusion ground

330

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 which (...)

Michael Clancy, Samuel Hall, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The Italian Highest Administrative Court refers a case involving an anti-competitive arrangement concerning the sale of eye medication for the second time to the EU Court of Justice (Avastin / Lucentis)

33

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 (...)

Samuel Hall The EU General Court maintains Commission decision finding that a Lithuanian railway company abused its dominant position on the national rail freight sector (Lietuvos geležinkelai)

71

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 reduced the (...)

Samuel Hall The EU Court of Justice Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe advises to dismiss the parties’ challenges to the Commission’s finding abuse of dominance on the Slovak broadband services market (Slovak Telekom / Deutsche Telekom)

79

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 finding (...)

Send a message