ZRP
Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii

By object restrictions of competition in the pharmaceutical industry in the context of off-label use of medicines (CJEU preliminary ruling in F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato)

26 Ianuarie 2018   |   Georgeta Dinu, Partener, Head of Copetition, State Aid and EU Law & Alexandru Șotropa, Associate - NNDKP

In order to determine that the agreement represents a restriction of competition 'by object', the Court ruled that "a national competition authority may include in the relevant market, in addition to the medicinal products authorised for the treatment of the diseases concerned, another medicinal product whose marketing authorisation does not cover that treatment but which is used for that purpose and is thus actually substitutable with the former".

Georgeta Dinu, Partener, Head of Copetition, State Aid and EU Law, Alexandru Sotropa, Associate - NNDKP

 
 
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 23 January 2018 in Case F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (C-179/16) that "an arrangement between two undertakings marketing two competing products which concerns the dissemination, in a context of scientific uncertainty, to the European Medicines Agency, healthcare professionals and the general public of misleading information relating to adverse reactions resulting from the use of one of those medicinal products for the treatment of diseases not covered by the marketing authorisation of that product, with a view to reducing the competitive pressure resulting from such use on the use of the other product, constitutes a restriction of competition ‘by object’ for the purposes of [Art. 101 TFEU]".


The question was raised in the context of proceedings brought in Italy for fines imposed in 2014 by the competition authority to companies in Roche and Novartis groups as a result of finding a market-sharing agreement. Roche was entrusted the commercial exploitation of Avastin (whose marketing authorization - MA - covered the treatment of certain tumorous diseases), while Novartis of Lucentis (whose marketing authorization covered the treatment of eye diseases). Avastin however was prescribed by doctors for eye diseases, even if such an indication was not covered by the marketing authorization (off-label). According to the Italian competition authority's decision, the market-sharing agreement "was intended to produce and disseminate opinions which could give rise to public concern regarding the safety of Avastin when used in ophthalmology" and also related to "proceedings for amendment of the summary of Avastin's characteristics that were pending before the EMA and to the sending of a subsequent formal communication to healthcare professionals", which had resulted in a drop of Avastin sales and a shift in demand towards Lucentis.

In order to determine that the agreement represents a restriction of competition 'by object', the Court ruled that "a national competition authority may include in the relevant market, in addition to the medicinal products authorised for the treatment of the diseases concerned, another medicinal product whose marketing authorisation does not cover that treatment but which is used for that purpose and is thus actually substitutable with the former".

The Court noted the fact that pharmaceutical products are manufactured or sold illegally prevents them, in principle, from being regarded as substitutable, but EU rules on pharmaceutical products prohibit neither the off-label prescription of a medicinal product nor its repackaging for such use, under certain conditions. Also, the Court noted that no unlawfulness of the conditions under which Avastin was repackaged and prescribed for off-label use had been established by national authorities or courts.

The Court further ruled that such a restriction is not ancillary to the licensing agreement and therefore does not fall outside the scope of Art. 101 TFEU - it was designed to restrict the conduct of third parties, in particular healthcare professionals, it was not objectively necessary for the implementation of the licensing agreement, as it was agreed upon several years after.
 
 

PNSA

 
 

ARTICOLE PE ACEEASI TEMA

ARTICOLE DE ACELASI AUTOR


     

    Ascunde Reclama
     
     

    POSTEAZA UN COMENTARIU


    Nume *
    Email (nu va fi publicat) *
    Comentariu *
    Cod de securitate*







    * campuri obligatorii


    Articol 55 / 1996
     

    Ascunde Reclama
     
     
     
    BREAKING NEWS
    ESENTIAL
    Palatul Mogoșoaia rămâne în proprietatea Municipiului București. Un nou succes de anvergură al avocaților NNDKP
    „Noutăţi în dreptul Uniunii Europene ediţia a V-a”. Concluziile conferinţei organizate de STOICA & Asociaţii
    Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații se așteaptă ca solicitările privind asistența juridică legată de GDPR să continue și după luna mai. Ciprian Timofte, Managing Associate: Există o percepție cvasi-generală că, pentru a fi conform cu GDPR, ar fi suficient să te „acoperi” cu hârtii și proceduri. Total fals!
    Regulamentul General pentru Protectia Datelor: În spatele scenei, alături de avocații Bondoc & Asociații
    Rodica Manea devine al optulea partener local la CMS România. Gabriel Sidere (Managing Partner): Creșterea susținută pe care o înregistrăm în biroul din București are nevoie de noi lideri, ca Rodica
    Succes NNDKP într-o procedură de arbitru de urgență pe rolul CCIR
    Concentrația de minți formidabile, gândirea laterală și analiza strategică complexă, câteva din ingredientele performanței PeliFilip. Cătălin Alexandru, Partener: Litigiile sunt ca un joc de șah. Clienții se bucură să descopere că suntem cu mai multe mutări în fața adversarului
    Penaliștii de la Mareș | Danilescu | Mareș în asociere cu Dan Lupașcu au sesizat CCR în ”Dosarul Mineriadei”, în care îl apără pe Mugurel Florescu. Admiterea excepției ar avea efecte importante asupra modului de rezolvare a fondului cauzei
    Reff & Asociații asigură trei tipuri de servicii pentru implementarea prevederilor GDPR. Echipa de zece avocați lucrează atât pentru societăți locale, cât și multinaționale, fiind implicată în ultimul an și în proiecte multijurisdicționale
    Septimiu Stoica, Of Counsel Dentons: Pe piața de capital, cele mai frecvente solicitări de consultanță și asistență vin din zona ofertelor publice, fie că este vorba de finanțare, listare, răscumpărare sau ofertă publică obligatorie. Majoritatea proiectelor în care echipa Dentons s-a implicat au fost transfrontaliere
    LegiTeam: Societatea Civilă De Avocaţi Zamfirescu Racoţi & Partners recrutează avocați definitivi pentru departamentul Consultanță
    LegiTeam: Voicu & Filipescu is looking for lawyers
     
    Citeste pe SeeNews Digital Network
    • BizBanker

    • BizLeader

        in curand...
    • SeeNews

      in curand...