Chillin'Competition

1. The fact that the Glaxo case took 11 years to solve irritates me. Is it reasonable to expect market players from both sides – pharmaceutical companies and parallel traders – to remain in a state of commercial uncertainty for so long?

2. In retrospect, the Glaxo saga demonstrates that, for more than ten years, the law of Article 81(3) EC (and also of Article 81(1) EC) has been in a state of flux, thereby  undermining the Commission’s optimistic contention that the law of Article 81(3) EC is – and was at the time of the adoption of Regulation 1 – crystal clear. With such conflicting judgments being handed down every now and then, one may really question whether Article 81(3) exhibits the necessary features to have direct effect (clarity, precision, and unconditional nature).

3. Why is the table of contents of French law books systematically located at the end?  This is really inconvenient.

4. And a note of satisfaction. At the European Competition Day in Sweden (7 October 2009), P. LOWE has apparently endorsed the views presented by the GCLC,  during its last annual conference.

LOWE is reported to have said:

“It is essential for business […] to know what is acceptable and what is not“;

He added:

“we recognise the need for guidance – to know what behaviour is anticompetitive.”

Too bad LOWE is leaving COMP in the next weeks. And thanks to C. HUMPE for the pointer. Christophe and I have been – amongst others – drafting the first chapter of the forthcoming GCLC book on Regulation 1/2003.  Our main area of concern lies in the Commission’s overreliance on negative enforcement, and the absence of any sort of positive enforcement whatsoever.

Image – Source: Wikimedia