GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission

GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission is a landmark case in the field of European Union competition law, specifically concerning the pharmaceutical industry. This case highlights the complex interplay between intellectual property rights, market competition, and public health considerations within the EU.

Background

The case originated from practices by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a major global pharmaceutical company, involving the supply of its medicines in Greece. GSK implemented a dual pricing system for its drugs sold in Greece, charging higher prices for drugs intended for domestic use and lower prices for drugs meant to be exported to other EU countries. This pricing strategy was aimed at combating parallel trade, a legal practice within the EU where goods can be sold across borders without the permission of the intellectual property owner. Parallel traders were purchasing GSK's drugs in Greece at lower prices and then selling them in other EU countries at a profit, exploiting the price differences between national markets.

The Case

The case, GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission (European Court of Justice Case C-501/06 P), revolved around whether GSK's dual pricing scheme constituted a violation of EU competition laws, specifically Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits agreements between companies that may prevent, restrict or distort competition within the internal market.

GSK argued that its practices were necessary to protect its investment in drug research and development. The company claimed that parallel trade undermined its ability to recoup the costs of developing new medicines, thereby harming innovation in the pharmaceutical sector.

Decision

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that GSK's dual pricing scheme could potentially restrict competition. However, the Court also recognized that certain restrictive practices might be justified if they contribute to promoting competition based on the merits and incentivize the creation of new and improved products or services. The ECJ sent the case back to the General Court to assess whether GSK's practices could be exempted under Article 101(3) of the TFEU, which allows for exceptions to the rule against anti-competitive agreements if they contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or promote technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit.

Implications

The GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission case is significant for several reasons. It underscores the tension between intellectual property rights and competition law, especially in sectors like pharmaceuticals where innovation is costly and critical for public health. The case also highlights the challenges of regulating market practices in a unified market like the EU, where price differentials between member states can lead to practices like parallel trading.

Furthermore, the decision opened the door for companies to justify certain anti-competitive practices if they can demonstrate that these practices have pro-competitive effects that outweigh their anti-competitive impacts. This has implications for how pharmaceutical companies structure their pricing and sales strategies across the EU.

See Also

• European Union competition law
• Parallel trade
• Pharmaceutical industry
• Intellectual property rights in the European Union

‎