''GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission'' (2009
C-513/06
is an

EU competition law European competition law is the competition law in use within the European Union. It promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not crea ...

case, concerning the meaning of harm to "competition" under

TFEU The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is one of two treaties forming the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU), the other being the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It was previously known as the Treaty Establishi ...

article 101 Article often refers to: * Article (grammar), a grammatical element used to indicate definiteness or indefiniteness * Article (publishing), a piece of nonfictional prose that is an independent part of a publication Article may also refer to: G ...

Facts

GlaxoSmithKline GSK plc, formerly GlaxoSmithKline plc, is a British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company with global headquarters in London, England. Established in 2000 by a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. GSK is the ten ...

put a clause in contracts with Spanish wholesalers requiring they did not export medicines to other Member States. National health authorities fix prices for medicines at different levels, and it wished to prevent wholesalers shipping cheap drugs from Spain to the UK. The Commission found that GSK's agreement had the object of restricting competition, given that the agreement served to partition the internal market. GSK appealed against the finding.

Judgment

General Court

The General Court held that the prevention of parallel trade was not enough to amount to a restriction of competition. It said that the objective of article 101 is to stop ‘reducing the welfare of the final consumer of the products in question.' The Commission must not only find a reduction of parallel trade, but also say why this damages competition.

Court of Justice

The Court of Justice overturned the General Court, and held that prevention of parallel imports was unlawful. The General Court had committed an error of law by holding that some effect on consumers was necessary. The unlawfulness of this activity had been established in '' Consten and Grundig''. The Court said the following.(2009
C-513/06
006ECR II-2969

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References