Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/28 |

---

Appeal brought on 28 February 2019 by Mylan Laboratories Ltd, Mylan, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-682/14: Mylan Laboratories and Mylan v Commission

(Case C-197/19 P)

(2019/C 164/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Mylan Laboratories Ltd, Mylan, Inc. (represented by: C. Firth, S. Kon, C. Humpe, Solicitors, V. Adamis, advocate)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-682/14 Mylan Laboratories Ltd and Mylan Inc. v European Commission insofar as it dismisses their application to annul the Decision of the Commission of 9 July 2014 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019164EN.01002801-E0001) in Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier) insofar as it concerns the applicants; or |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul or substantially reduce the fine; and/or |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the Commission to pay the appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter and any other measures that the Court of Justice considers appropriate. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on five grounds of appeal supported by the following pleas.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First Ground of Appeal: The General Court erred in law in finding that Matrix and Les Laboratoires Servier were potential competitors at the time of the settlement.  First plea: The General Court was wrong to conclude that the Commission was entitled to consider that Matrix and Niche could be classified as potential competitors on the basis of the Niche/Matrix Agreement.  Second plea: The General Court misapplied the legal test for potential competition in reaching the conclusion that Matrix and Servier were potential competitors at the time of entering into the Settlement. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Second Ground of Appeal: The General Court erred in law in finding that the settlement had the object of restricting competition.  First plea: The General Court has erred in finding that a patent settlement can have the object of restricting competition even though the terms of that settlement are within the scope of the patent.  Second plea: The General Court has erred in deriving the existence of a restriction of competition by object from the alleged inducement represented by the payment made by Servier to Matrix.  Third plea: The General Court erred in the manner in which it inferred the existence of an inducement from the payment received by Matrix. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Third Ground of Appeal: The General Court erred in declining to rule on the Commission’s classification of the settlement as a restriction of competition by effect. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Fourth Ground of Appeal: The General Court erred in law in finding that Mylan Inc. exercised decisive influence over the conduct of Matrix during the relevant period. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | Fifth Ground of Appeal: The General Court has infringed Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019164EN.01002801-E0002) and the principles of nullum crimen nula poena sine lege, and legal certainty in finding that a fine could be imposed on the appellants. |

---

---

[Top](#document1)