Free-Riding for the Common Good? Generics, Biosimilars and References to Originator Trademarks in Comparative Advertising in France

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Rouvinen
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Choice ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Comparative Advertising ◽  
National Healthcare ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

Abstract Generic and biosimilar medicines are fiscally advantageous products in relation to which the generally applicable EU rules governing comparative advertising seemingly conflict with national healthcare policy. This article argues that the permissive stance of the French courts on the use of the trademarked names of originator medicines in advertising for generics appears inconsistent with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as it stands in relation to Art. 4(f) of Directive 2006/114/EC on misleading and comparative advertising. This gives rise to an undesirable divergence in the application of the Directive between Member States, suggesting that further guidance is needed on the application of the provision to generic-originator comparisons. It is submitted that treating generic drugs with particular leniency is unjustified given the detrimental effect the use of originator trademarks by the marketers of generics and biosimilars may have on the ability of the originator trademark to stimulate investment into manufacturing quality. The issue of the degree to which the use of originator trademarks in advertising promoting generics and biosimilars should be permitted serves as a poignant example of the delicate balance required for comparative advertising to increase consumer choice whilst simultaneously protecting competitors from advertising that may ultimately be detrimental to undistorted competition in the Single Market.

scholarly journals Made in Luxembourg: The fabrication of the law on jurisdiction of the court of justice of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common

The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Articles 24 TEU, first paragraph, second subparagraph, and 275 TFEU governing the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The article first describes the background of those provisions as they resulted from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2003-4 and 2007 Intergovernmental Conferences and then compares the Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction to the drafting history of the provisions concerned. The main conclusion of the study of the case law suggests that the Court views its jurisdiction over the CFSP more broadly than the jurisdiction envisaged by the drafters of the Treaties. In particular, the Court both interprets the exclusion from its jurisdiction of acts based on the Treaty’s CFSP provisions in a narrow fashion and is prepared to review the legality of CFSP acts not only through direct actions but also through references for a preliminary ruling. However, the article argues that the provision of adequate legal protection in the field of the CFSP necessarily requires both the Court of Justice and domestic courts of the Member States to play their respective roles.

scholarly journals Guarantee for the value added tax

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 35-52
Author(s):  
Michael Feldek
Keyword(s):  
Value Added ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Value Added Tax ◽  
Common System ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
The Common ◽  
Descriptive Method

The paper examines legal disputes arising from the questionable implementation of article 205 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax into the Czech legal order. The main aim of the paper is to find out whether the provisions resulting from that implementation are applicable, and if so under what conditions. Author draws conclusions mainly from case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Czech Supreme Administrative Court and uses analysis, synthesis and descriptive method.

scholarly journals Derecho europeo, Derecho de la competencia y Derecho internacional privado: algunas cuestiones de transporte y competencia relativas a los observatorios de costes de caracter público

2015 ◽  
pp. 55-95
Author(s):  
Unai BELINTXON MARTIN
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Law ◽  
Commercial Sector ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Security ◽  
The Impact ◽  
European Competition Law

LABURPENA: Ondorengo ikerketa honek errepide bidezko garraio sektorearen araudietan jasandako garapenaren, baita europar lehiakortasun Zuzenbideak sektore honetan duen eraginaren azterketa eta baloratze kritikoa du helburu. Ikuspuntu bikoitza duen analisi hau, teorikoa zein praktikoa, arau-bloke, garraio politika erkide, europar Zuzenbidearen eragin, errepide bidezko garraio merkatuak bizi duen enpresa-kontzentrazio, amaigabea den liberalizazio prozesu eta Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren ustiapen prezio minimoen inguruko azken erabakietan oinarritzen da. Sektore honetako ekintzaileen analisiari dagokionean, segurtasun juridikoaren helburua zein neurritan lortzen ari den aztertuko da. Edo aitzitik, arau ezberdinen arteko bateragarritasun arau argien gabeziak sor dezakeen ezjakintasuna, parte hartzen duten alde guztien intereserako kaltegarri dena, analizatuko da. RESUMEN: Esta reflexión tiene por objeto el análisis y valoración crítica de la evolución normativa experimentada en el sector del transporte por carretera y la incidencia del Derecho a la competencia europeo sobre este singular sector. El análisis se centra desde una doble perspectiva teórica y práctica, en el estudio de los bloques normativos en presencia, la política común de transportes, la repercusión del Derecho europeo, el proceso de concentración empresarial que está viviendo el mercado del trasporte por carretera, el inacabado proceso de liberalización, y los últimos pronunciamientos del TJUE sobre la fijación de costes mínimos de explotación. Desde la perspectiva de análisis de los operadores del sector se abordará en qué medida el objetivo de seguridad jurídica se está logrando o si por el contrario la ausencia de reglas claras de compatibilidad entre esas diversas normas acaba generando incertidumbres que perjudican a todo el elenco de intereses en presencia. ABSTRACT: The aim of this research is to analyze and evaluate the regulations development in carriage by road sector and the impact of European Competition law in this commercial sector. In particular, the research will focus on analyzing the interaction between normative blocks (European Law, national law and the conventional sources), the common transport policy, the impact of European law, concentration process in road sector, the unfinished process of liberalization and the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. From the operators sector’s point of view, it will tackle that when the aim of the legal security is achieving or on the contrary the absence of the compatibility of the rules between those deserve rules finishes producing doubts that harm all the interests of the present cast.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘judicial authority’ and issuing European arrest warrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.

scholarly journals Free movement of workers in the EU and occupational pensions

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Del Sol ◽  
Marco Rocca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Cross National

The European Union appears to be promoting at the same time both cross-national mobility of workers and an increased role for occupational pensions. There is, however, a potential tension between these two objectives because workers risk losing (some of) their pension rights under an occupational scheme as a consequence of their mobility. After long negotiations, the EU has addressed this issue through a minimum standards Directive. Shortly before the adoption of this Directive, the Court of Justice also delivered an important decision in the same field, in the case of Casteels v British Airways. By analysing the resulting legal framework for safeguarding pension rights under occupational schemes in the context of workers’ mobility, we argue that the application of the case law developed by the Court of Justice in the field of free movement of workers has the potential to offer superior protection compared to the Directive. We also highlight the fact that the present legal framework seems to afford a much fuller protection to the intra-company cross-national mobility of workers employed by multinational companies, while also seemingly favouring mobility for highly specialised workers.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

From ‘Don’t Mention the Titanium Dioxide Judgment’ to ‘I Mentioned it Once, But I Think I Got Away with it All Right’: Reflections on the Choice of Legal Basis in EU External Relations after the Legal Basis for Restrictive Measures Judgment

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 537-562
Author(s):  
Geert de Baere
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Titanium Dioxide ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Restrictive Measures

Abstract This chapter examines the choice of legal basis in EU external relations post-Lisbon in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Legal Basis for Restrictive Measures case. Before reaching the conclusion that the regulation at issue there was rightly based on Article 215(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and rejecting the European Parliament’s argument that the measure ought to have been taken on the basis of Article 75 TFEU, the Court made a number of important observations on the principles to be followed when choosing a legal basis and recalled some of its earlier case law, in particular Titanium Dioxide and its progeny. This chapter reflects upon the application of those principles in a post-Lisbon framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document