# C_2015142EN.01002001.xml

| 29.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/20

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

1

Fentanyl

(AT.39685)

(2015/C 142/09)

| (1) | This case concerns a so-called ‘co-promotion’ agreement between the Dutch originator pharmaceutical company Janssen-Cilag BV, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter ‘J&J’) and the Dutch generic pharmaceutical companies Hexal BV and Sandoz BV, both of them subsidiaries of Novartis AG at the time of the alleged infringement (hereinafter ‘Novartis/Sandoz’). Pursuant to the agreement, the generic challenger would abstain from entering the Dutch market for the painkiller fentanyl. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

This case concerns a so-called ‘co-promotion’ agreement between the Dutch originator pharmaceutical company Janssen-Cilag BV, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter ‘J&J’) and the Dutch generic pharmaceutical companies Hexal BV and Sandoz BV, both of them subsidiaries of Novartis AG at the time of the alleged infringement (hereinafter ‘Novartis/Sandoz’). Pursuant to the agreement, the generic challenger would abstain from entering the Dutch market for the painkiller fentanyl.

| (2) | On 30 January 2013, the European Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’). The parties received access to the file on 15 February 2013 and replied to the SO on 22 and 30 April 2013 respectively, after the Directorate-General for Competition granted a one- and two-week extension to the original deadline. The parties did not request an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 30 January 2013, the European Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’). The parties received access to the file on 15 February 2013 and replied to the SO on 22 and 30 April 2013 respectively, after the Directorate-General for Competition granted a one- and two-week extension to the original deadline. The parties did not request an oral hearing.

| (3) | In view of new arguments and facts received when the parties submitted their replies to the SO, the Commission issued a Letter of Facts on 17 October 2013, to which J&J replied on 30 October 2013 and Novartis/Sandoz, after the Directorate-General for Competition granted a short deadline extension, on 6 November 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In view of new arguments and facts received when the parties submitted their replies to the SO, the Commission issued a Letter of Facts on 17 October 2013, to which J&J replied on 30 October 2013 and Novartis/Sandoz, after the Directorate-General for Competition granted a short deadline extension, on 6 November 2013.

| (4) | The draft decision concludes that the agreement between J&J and Novartis/Sandoz constitutes a violation of Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The draft decision concludes that the agreement between J&J and Novartis/Sandoz constitutes a violation of Article 101 TFEU.

| (5) | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

| (6) | In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 6 December 2013.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Article 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

---