# C_2016393EN.01000201.xml

| 25.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 393/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 393/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 30 June 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39612(1) — Perindopril (Servier)

Rapporteur: Austria

(2016/C 393/02)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s definition of the relevant market for perindopril formulations in the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Poland and for perindopril API technology in at least the EU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s definition of the relevant market for perindopril formulations in the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Poland and for perindopril API technology in at least the EU.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Servier held a dominant position in the market for perindopril formulations in the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Poland and in the at least EU-wide market for perindopril API technology, in the respective time periods. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Servier held a dominant position in the market for perindopril formulations in the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Poland and in the at least EU-wide market for perindopril API technology, in the respective time periods.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the respective parties concluded agreements that had the object of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the respective parties concluded agreements that had the object of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the respective parties concluded agreements that had the effect of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU in the relevant Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the respective parties concluded agreements that had the effect of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU in the relevant Member States.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements between Servier and the generic companies were capable of having an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements between Servier and the generic companies were capable of having an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conditions of Article 101 paragraph 3 TFEU are not met. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conditions of Article 101 paragraph 3 TFEU are not met.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees that Servier abused its dominant position by pursuing an exclusionary strategy combining the Azad technology acquisition and the conclusion of five patent settlement agreements, which together constitute a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees that Servier abused its dominant position by pursuing an exclusionary strategy combining the Azad technology acquisition and the conclusion of five patent settlement agreements, which together constitute a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conditions of objective justification for the infringement of Article 102 TFEU are not met. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conditions of objective justification for the infringement of Article 102 TFEU are not met.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision as regards the conclusion that the abuse was capable of having an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision as regards the conclusion that the abuse was capable of having an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringements of Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringements of Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision as regards all addressees of the Decision, specifically regarding parental liability. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision as regards all addressees of the Decision, specifically regarding parental liability.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---