Case T- 691/14 Servier v Commission et al (pay–for–delay) [Archived]
Case T- 691/14 Servier v Commission et al (pay–for–delay) [Archived]

The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case T- 691/14 Servier v Commission et al (pay–for–delay) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related cases

ARCHIVED—this achieved case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 12 December 2018; it is no longer maintained.

NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C- 144/19 P, C- 151/19 P, C- 164/19 P, C- 166/19 P, C- 176/19 P, C- 197/19 P, C- 198/19 P, C- 201/19 P and C- 207/19 P

See further: timeline and commentary.

Case facts

OutlineAppeals to the General Court in seeking annulment and/or reductions in the level of fines imposed regarding the Commission’s decision of 9 June 2014 finding infringements of Article 101 and Article 102 insofar as they relate to Servier and imposing fines totalling €427.7m on Servier and five producers of generic drugs to delay the entry of perindopril.

OutcomeOn 12 December 2018, the General Court issued its judgments in Cases T- 691/14 Servier v Commission, T- 677/14 Biogaran v Commission, T- 679/14 Teva UK and Others v Commission, T- 680/14 Lupin v Commission, T- 682/14 Mylan Laboratories and Mylan v Commission, T- 684/14 Krka v Commission, all actions for the annulment of the Commission’s decision finding an infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by Servier and five generic drug manufacturers in relation to pay-for-delay agreements for perindopril (AT.39612).

The General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision, reducing the fines from a total of €428m to €315m.
Navigate the law quickly and efficiently with Lexis®PSL
Imagine being able to quickly find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice. With LexisPSL, you can.
Take a free trial Take a free trial
Related documents:

Popular documents

LEXISNEXIS

Forming enforceable contracts—consideration

This Practice Note examines the doctrine of consideration and the key role it plays in English law in determining whether a contract is enforceable.A promise will only be capable of being contractually enforced if it is either made in a deed or made in exchange for something of value, known as

LEXISNEXIS

The Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO)—duties

The roles of nominated officer and money laundering reporting officerA nominated officer is an individual who is nominated by a firm to receive disclosures under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) or Part III of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000)—see Requirement to appoint a

LEXISNEXIS

Foreign exchange (FX) derivatives

BREXIT: As of 31 January 2020, the UK is no longer an EU Member State, but has entered an implementation period during which it continues to be treated by the EU as a Member State for many purposes. As a third country, the UK can no longer participate in the EU’s political institutions, agencies,

LEXISNEXIS

Forming enforceable contracts—intention to create legal relations

An intention to create legal relations is requiredThere are various situations in which a court will hold that an agreement is not binding because, though supported by consideration, it was made without any intention of creating legal relations (see, eg, Blue v Ashley).Did the parties intend to