B9 11917. HvJ EU, 6 december 2012, zaak C‑457/10 P, AstraZeneca tegen Europese Commissie.
Octrooirecht. Mededinging. Misbruik van een machtspositie. Geschil over een door de Europese Commissie opgelegde boete wegens het geven van een systematisch en opzettelijk een verkeerde voorstelling van zaken aan octrooigemachtigden, nationale rechters en octrooibureaus, om aanvullende beschermingscertificaten te verkrijgen - waarvan AZ c.s. zouden hebben geweten dat zij er geen recht op hadden - voor hun geoctrooieerde product "omeprazole", de werkzame stof in AZ's geneesmiddel "Losec". De door de Europese Commissie opgelegde geldboete van €60 miljoen werd eerder grotendeels door het Gerecht EU onderschreven.
Het Hof van Justitie wijst het beroep van AstraZenca af: The Court dismisses the appeal of the AstraZeneca group, which abused its dominant position by preventing the marketing of generic products replicating Losec. 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.
Lees het arrest hier, perscommuniqué hier.
