Chillin'Competition

The title of this post is not to pay tribute to my former blog.

And it safely assumes that my former co-blogger will not sue us for unfair free-riding, or for some weird trademark infringement.

A hotch potch of antitrust-related ruminations:

• It struck me today as a little counter-intuitive that the upper Court of Justice (“CJ”) benefits from the advice of an Advocate General (“AG”) in all competition cases, whilst the General Court (“GC”) which hears more cases – and which reviews the whole of the case (facts + law) – does not enjoy the same luxury of perspectives. I know all too well that the GC may appoint an AG occasionally. But I have never heard that the GC availed itself of this opportunity in a competition case. I also know that AGs’ opinions focus primarily on points of law. But the GC also deals with issues of law. This situation is even more more surprising considering that before 1989, competition cases were handled by the Court of Justice in first instance, with the systematic assistance of an AG. A possible explanation for the degrading quality of first instance judgments in competition cases?
• Talking of AGs’ opinions, AG Mazak’s opinion on AstraZeneca’s appeal to the CJ is out. In short, AG Mazak advises the Court to dismiss all appeals.
• Talking of pharmaceuticals, I feel I have to self-promote write a line on a short, and modest text I wrote for the 1st edition of the Life Sciences College in March  (see link below). This text deals with recent antitrust developments in the pharmaceutical industry. It has been published nowhere, and I just do not know what to do with it (expand, publish, update, trash?). If anyone has a clue, please drop a line.

Speech – A quick look into the past, present and future of AT enforcement in Pharma – (22 03 12) NP