ALERTS: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES - ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES – COMPETENCE – CONCURRENT JURISDICTIONS – PUBLIC ORDER – ADMISSIBILITY

Specialized courts: The Versailles Court of Appeal, unspecialized jurisdiction for anticompetitive practices, rules in a dispute in which the existence of such practices is only alleged and dismisses the defendant’s pleas of inadmissibility (Openhealth ex Celtipharm / Iqvia ex IMS Health)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Facts Openhealth/Celtipharm (hereinafter "Open") accused its competitor, IMS Health (hereinafter "IMS"), of unfair competition, some of which, in particular legal actions, had anti-competitive purposes. Open had brought the matter before the Commercial Court of Nanterre, a non-specialized court in matters of "PAC". The latter had dismissed the objection raised by IMS. On appeal before the Versailles Court of Appeal, Open argued that this Court was competent to judge all the acts of unfair competition brought before it. IMS again invoked this ground for dismissal. According to IMS, Open was inadmissible and, in any event, ill-founded to pursue the harmful

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Jean-Michel Vertut - Avocat (Montpellier)

Quotation

Jean-Michel Vertut, Specialized courts: The Versailles Court of Appeal, unspecialized jurisdiction for anticompetitive practices, rules in a dispute in which the existence of such practices is only alleged and dismisses the defendant’s pleas of inadmissibility (Openhealth ex Celtipharm / Iqvia ex IMS Health), 3 December 2020, Concurrences N° 1-2021, Art. N° 99504, www.concurrences.com

Visites 46

All reviews