|
PARALLEL TEXTS
La Corte respinge l’impugnazione del gruppo AstraZeneca che ha abusato della sua posizione dominante ostacolando la commercializzazione dei prodotti generici equivalenti del Losec
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-12-158_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-12-158_it.htm
Data documento: 06-12-2012
1 |
The Court dismisses the appeal of the AstraZeneca group, which abused its dominant position by preventing the marketing of generic products replicating Losec
|
La Corte respinge l’impugnazione del gruppo AstraZeneca che ha abusato della sua posizione dominante ostacolando la commercializzazione dei prodotti generici equivalenti del Losec
|
2 |
AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc belong to a pharmaceutical group (‘AZ’) which is active worldwide in the sector of the invention, development and marketing of pharmaceutical products.
|
L’AstraZeneca AB e l’AstraZeneca plc appartengono a un gruppo farmaceutico («AZ») operante, su scala mondiale, nel settore dell’ideazione, dello sviluppo e della commercializzazione di prodotti farmaceutici.
|
3 |
One of the main products marketed by AZ is known as ‘Losec’ (a treatment for ulcers).
|
Uno dei prodotti più venduti da AZ è noto con il nome di «Losec» (antiulcera).
|
4 |
By decision of 15 June 2005, the Commission imposed a fine of €60 million on those companies for having committed two abuses of a dominant position.
|
Con decisione del 15 giugno 2005 la Commissione ha irrogato a tali società un’ammenda di importo complessivo pari a EUR 60 milioni, per aver commesso due abusi di posizione dominante.
|
5 |
First, the Commission found that AZ had made deliberately misleading representations to the patent offices of certain Member States.
|
Da un lato, la Commissione ha constatato che AZ aveva reso dichiarazioni deliberatamente ingannevoli dinanzi agli uffici dei brevetti di taluni Stati membri.
|
6 |
Those representations sought to obtain or maintain supplementary protection certificates for Losec, granting an extension of the protection under the patent, to which AZ was not entitled or to which it was entitled for a shorter duration, in order to keep manufacturers of generic products away from the market.
|
Tali dichiarazioni erano volte a ottenere o mantenere, per il Losec, certificati protettivi complementari, che prolungavano la protezione conferita dal brevetto, cui AZ non aveva diritto, o cui aveva diritto per una durata più limitata, e ciò al fine di escludere dal mercato i fabbricanti di prodotti generici.
|
7 |
Secondly, AZ was penalised for having submitted requests for deregistration of the marketing authorisations for Losec capsules in Denmark, Sweden and Norway in order to delay or make more difficult the marketing of generic medicinal products, and to prevent parallel imports of Losec.
|
Dall’altro, AZ è stato sanzionato per aver chiesto la revoca delle autorizzazioni all’immissione in commercio delle capsule di Losec in Danimarca, in Svezia e in Norvegia al fine di ritardare e rendere più difficile la commercializzazione dei medicinali generici, nonché di impedire le importazioni parallele di Losec.
|
8 |
AstraZeneca plc and AstraZeneca AB brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision.
|
L’AstraZeneca plc e l’AstraZeneca AB hanno proposto un ricorso dinanzi al Tribunale chiedendo l’annullamento della decisione della Commissione.
|
9 |
By a judgment of 1 July 2010, the General Court rejected most of the arguments put forward by AZ. However, it annulled in part the Commission’s decision so far as concerns the finding of the second abuse.
|
Con sentenza del 1° luglio 2010 il Tribunale ha respinto la maggior parte degli argomenti sollevati da AZ, ma ha parzialmente annullato la decisione della Commissione relativamente al secondo abuso.
|
10 |
The General Court held that, although the Commission had proved that the deregistration of the marketing authorisations for Losec capsules in Denmark, Sweden and Norway were such as to delay the entry to the market of generic medicinal products in those three countries and, furthermore, to prevent parallel imports of Losec in Sweden, the Commission had not proved that that latter effect had been produced in Denmark and in Norway.
|
Il Tribunale ha infatti dichiarato che, pur avendo la Commissione dimostrato che le revoche delle autorizzazioni all’immissione in commercio delle capsule di Losec in Danimarca, in Svezia e in Norvegia erano idonee a ritardare l’accesso al mercato dei medicinali generici in questi tre paesi e, inoltre, a impedire le importazioni parallele di Losec in Svezia, essa non aveva provato che quest’ultimo effetto si fosse altresì prodotto in Danimarca e in Norvegia.
|
11 |
The General Court therefore reduced the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc to €40.25 million and fixed the fine imposed on AstraZeneca AB at €12.25 million.
|
Di conseguenza il Tribunale ha ridotto l’ammenda inflitta congiuntamente e in solido all’AstraZeneca AB e all’AstraZeneca plc a EUR 40,25 milioni e ha fissato quella irrogata all’AstraZeneca AB in EUR 12,25 milioni.
|
12 |
AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice to have that judgment of the General Court set aside.
|
L’AstraZeneca AB e l’AstraZeneca plc hanno impugnato dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia tale sentenza chiedendone l’annullamento.
|
13 |
By today’s judgment, the Court rejects the arguments advanced by the two companies, concerning, inter alia, errors of law allegedly made by the General Court in respect of the assessment of two abuses and the determination of the amount of the fines.
|
Con la sentenza odierna, la Corte respinge gli argomenti sollevati dalle due società, relativi agli errori di diritto che secondo loro il Tribunale avrebbe commesso nella valutazione dei due abusi e nella determinazione dell’importo delle ammende.
|
14 |
As regards, in particular, the first abuse of a dominant position concerning supplementary protection certificates, the Court observes that EU law prohibits a dominant undertaking from eliminating a competitor and thereby strengthening its position by using methods other than those which come within the scope of competition on the merits.
|
Riguardo, in particolare, al primo abuso di posizione dominante relativo ai certificati protettivi complementari, la Corte ricorda che il diritto dell’Unione vieta a un’impresa in posizione dominante di eliminare un concorrente e di rafforzare in tal modo la propria posizione, facendo ricorso a mezzi diversi da quelli propri di una concorrenza basata sui meriti.
|
15 |
The Court concludes on this issue that the General Court was fully entitled to hold that AZ’s consistent and linear conduct, which was characterised by the notification to the patent offices of misleading representations and the lack of transparency by which AZ deliberately attempted to lead the patent offices and judicial authorities into error in order to keep for as long as possible its monopoly on the medicinal products market, was a breach of competition on the merits and therefore an abuse of a dominant position.
|
La Corte conclude, in ordine a tale punto, che il Tribunale ha giustamente considerato che il comportamento costante e lineare di AZ, caratterizzato dalla comunicazione agli uffici dei brevetti di dichiarazioni ingannevoli nonché dall’assenza di trasparenza, mediante il quale AZ ha deliberatamente tentato di indurre in errore gli uffici dei brevetti e le autorità giudiziarie al fine di mantenere il più a lungo possibile il suo monopolio sul mercato dei medicinali, costituisce una pratica estranea alla concorrenza basata sui meriti e quindi un abuso di posizione dominante.
|
16 |
So far as concerns the second abuse of a dominant position, the Court has held that the deregistration of the marketing authorisations, without objective justification and after the expiry of the exclusive right granted by EU law, with the aim of hindering the introduction of generic products and parallel imports, also does not come within the scope of competition on the merits.
|
Riguardo al secondo abuso di posizione dominante, la Corte ha constatato che non è riconducibile a una concorrenza basata sui meriti nemmeno il comportamento consistente nella domanda di revoca, senza giustificazione oggettiva e dopo la scadenza del diritto esclusivo riconosciuto dal diritto dell’Unione, delle autorizzazioni all’immissione in commercio allo scopo di ostacolare l’introduzione dei prodotti generici e le importazioni parallele.
|
17 |
In respect of the fine imposed on the companies, the Court is of the opinion that the General Court did not err in law in concluding, inter alia, that, in the absence of mitigating circumstances or special circumstances, the abuses must be characterised as serious infringements, and consequently the amount of the fine cannot be reduced for those reasons.
|
Quanto all’ammenda inflitta alle due società, la Corte considera che il Tribunale non abbia commesso errori di diritto nel concludere in particolare che, in assenza di circostanze attenuanti o di circostanze particolari, gli abusi devono essere qualificati come infrazioni gravi. Di conseguenza, l’importo dell’ammenda non può essere ridotto per tali ragioni.
|
18 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
19 |
An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or order of the General Court.
|
Avverso le sentenze o ordinanze del Tribunale può essere presentata impugnazione alla Corte di giustizia, limitatamente alle questioni di diritto.
|
20 |
In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect.
|
In linea di principio, l'impugnazione non ha effetti sospensivi.
|
21 |
If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court.
|
Se essa è ricevibile e fondata, la Corte annulla la decisione del Tribunale.
|
22 |
Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case.
|
Nel caso in cui la causa sia matura per essere decisa, la Corte stessa può pronunciarsi definitivamente sulla controversia;
|
23 |
Otherwise, it refers the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.
|
in caso contrario, rinvia la causa al Tribunale, vincolato dalla decisione emanata dalla Corte in sede di impugnazione. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
The Court dismisses the appeal of the AstraZeneca group, which abused its
dominant position by preventing the marketing of generic products replicating
Losec
AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc belong to a pharmaceutical group
(‘AZ’) which is active worldwide in the sector of the invention, development and
marketing of pharmaceutical products.
One of the main products marketed by AZ is known as ‘Losec’ (a
treatment for ulcers).
By decision of 15 June 2005, the Commission imposed a fine of €60
million on those companies for having committed two abuses of a dominant
position.
First, the Commission found that AZ had made deliberately misleading
representations to the patent offices of certain Member States.
Those representations sought to obtain or maintain supplementary
protection certificates for Losec, granting an extension of the protection under
the patent, to which AZ was not entitled or to which it was entitled for a
shorter duration, in order to keep manufacturers of generic products away from
the market.
Secondly, AZ was penalised for having submitted requests for
deregistration of the marketing authorisations for Losec capsules in Denmark,
Sweden and Norway in order to delay or make more difficult the marketing of
generic medicinal products, and to prevent parallel imports of Losec.
AstraZeneca plc and AstraZeneca AB brought an action before the General
Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision.
By a judgment of 1 July 2010, the General Court rejected most of the
arguments put forward by AZ. However, it annulled in part the Commission’s
decision so far as concerns the finding of the second abuse.
The General Court held that, although the Commission had proved that
the deregistration of the marketing authorisations for Losec capsules in
Denmark, Sweden and Norway were such as to delay the entry to the market of
generic medicinal products in those three countries and, furthermore, to prevent
parallel imports of Losec in Sweden, the Commission had not proved that that
latter effect had been produced in Denmark and in Norway.
The General Court therefore reduced the amount of the fine imposed
jointly and severally on AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc to €40.25 million
and fixed the fine imposed on AstraZeneca AB at €12.25 million.
AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc lodged an appeal before the Court of
Justice to have that judgment of the General Court set aside.
By today’s judgment, the Court rejects the arguments advanced by the
two companies, concerning, inter alia, errors of law allegedly made by the
General Court in respect of the assessment of two abuses and the determination
of the amount of the fines.
As regards, in particular, the first abuse of a dominant position
concerning supplementary protection certificates, the Court observes that EU law
prohibits a dominant undertaking from eliminating a competitor and thereby
strengthening its position by using methods other than those which come within
the scope of competition on the merits.
The Court concludes on this issue that the General Court was fully
entitled to hold that AZ’s consistent and linear conduct, which was
characterised by the notification to the patent offices of misleading
representations and the lack of transparency by which AZ deliberately attempted
to lead the patent offices and judicial authorities into error in order to keep
for as long as possible its monopoly on the medicinal products market, was a
breach of competition on the merits and therefore an abuse of a dominant
position.
So far as concerns the second abuse of a dominant position, the Court
has held that the deregistration of the marketing authorisations, without
objective justification and after the expiry of the exclusive right granted by
EU law, with the aim of hindering the introduction of generic products and
parallel imports, also does not come within the scope of competition on the
merits.
In respect of the fine imposed on the companies, the Court is of the
opinion that the General Court did not err in law in concluding, inter alia,
that, in the absence of mitigating circumstances or special circumstances, the
abuses must be characterised as serious infringements, and consequently the
amount of the fine cannot be reduced for those reasons.
NOTE:
An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the
Court of Justice against a judgment or order of the General Court.
In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect.
If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside
the judgment of the General Court.
Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court of Justice may itself
give final judgment in the case.
Otherwise, it refers the case back to the General Court, which is bound by the
decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.
|