European Union: Refusal To Supply As A Mechanism For Controlling Parallel Trade In Pharma Products: Advocate General´s Opinion

Last Updated: 4 November 2004
Article by Simon Barnes and Gabriele Accardo

On 28 October 2004, Advocate General Jacobs handed down his opinion1 on a preliminary reference from the Greek Competition Commission requesting a ruling on the question of whether (and in what circumstances) a dominant pharmaceutical company may refuse to meet in full orders it receives from wholesalers in order to limit parallel trade.

If the opinion is followed by the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") when it hands down its final judgment, it could further inhibit the legal avenues available to the European Commission under the competition rules to prevent pharmaceutical undertakings taking unilateral actions to restrict parallel trade. The ECJ recently held (in the Bayer case) that the action taken by Bayer to limit supplies to wholesalers constituted unilateral conduct that fell outside the scope of the Article 81 prohibition on anti-competitive agreements.


The present case arises from GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) policy of refusing supplies of one of its products (known as Syfait) to wholesalers in Greece. Until November 2000, GSK had fully met orders placed by its Greek wholesalers. However, having become aware that a number of wholesalers were subsequently exporting a large proportion of those orders to other Member States where prices were much higher, GSK stopped supplying the wholesalers and stated that it would only supply hospitals and pharmacies directly. It alleged that the export of the products by the wholesalers was leading to shortages on the Greek market. GSK subsequently reinstated supplies to wholesalers, but in limited quantities.

The wholesalers complained to the Greek Competition Commission about GSK's refusal to meet their orders. During the course of its inquiry, the Commission referred to the ECJ a number of questions relating to the circumstances in which a dominant pharmaceutical company may refuse to meet orders in full, in order to limit the parallel trade in its products.


Advocate General Jacobs was essentially asked to consider two issues, as follows:

  • where a dominant pharmaceutical company fails to meet in full all orders placed with it with a view to limiting customers' export activity, should it always be regarded as abusing its dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
  • If not, what factors are relevant in determining whether or not such conduct should be considered abusive?


Whilst recognizing that the ECJ has on a number of occasions held that a dominant company may in some circumstances be obliged to supply its products or services, Advocate General Jacobs rejected the proposition that a refusal to supply by a dominant pharmaceutical company would be an automatic abuse. He noted that an obligation to supply only arises in exceptional circumstances and that a dominant company is not obliged to meet orders that are out of the ordinary and is entitled to take such steps as are reasonable in order to defend its commercial interests.

When considering whether particular behaviour should be considered abusive, the Advocate General underlined the importance of considering the specific economic and regulatory context of each case. He therefore examined the impact of parallel trading in the particular context of the European pharmaceutical sector. He noted that:

"To require the undertaking to supply all export orders placed with it would in many cases impose a disproportionate burden given the moral and legal obligations on it to maintain supplies in all Member States. Given the specific economic characteristics of the pharmaceutical industry, a requirement to supply would not necessarily promote either free movement or competition, and might harm the incentive for pharmaceutical undertakings to innovate. Moreover, it cannot be assumed that parallel trade would in fact benefit either the ultimate consumers of pharmaceutical products or the Member States, as primary purchasers of such products".

The Advocate General concluded that a refusal by a dominant undertaking to meet orders in full was capable of objective justification (and thus of not constituting an abuse) where the price differential giving rise to the parallel trade was the result of state intervention in the Member State of export to fix the price there at a level lower than that which prevailed elsewhere in the Community. He stressed that his conclusion was made on the basis of the specific circumstances of the European pharmaceutical sector at the current stage of its development, and in particular the following:

  • Price differentials caused by state intervention. Within the EU, national governments play an important role in fixing or influencing the price at which pharmaceutical products are sold. This has the effect of creating price differentials between different EU Member States. Against this backdrop, when pharmaceutical companies attempt to block parallel trade, they are not thereby seeking to entrench price differentials of their own making, but rather to avoid the consequences which would flow if the very low prices imposed on them in some Member States were generalized across the EU.
  • Nationally segregated regulation of the distribution of pharmaceuticals. The regulation of the distribution of pharmaceutical products is based around nationally segregated schemes. These aim to ensure that sufficient supplies are available in each country and public service obligations are imposed on both pharmaceutical companies and wholesalers. Parallel traders cut across this scheme and, in doing so, risk destabilizing it.
  • Potentially negative consequences of parallel trade for competition, the common market and incentives to innovate. Unregulated parallel trade would lead to pressure in low-price Member States to increase their prices. If prices rose, this would lead to reduced output and consumer welfare in Member States were the price rises occurred and would effectively lead to a redistribution of resources from consumers in the low-price Member States to those in the high-price Member States. If low-price Member States were able to resist the pressure for price rises, parallel trade flows would adversely impact pharmaceutical companies' revenue and their incentive to invest in research and development.
  • No benefit to end consumers or public authorities. On the one hand price competition as a result of parallel trading is not discernible to the end consumers (ie patients) which in many Member States make only a small flat-rate contribution towards the overall price of the products which are prescribed to them. On the other hand parallel trade does not always result in price competition to the benefit of the public bodies that in fact purchase the traded products or of the taxpayers which contribute to those funds.


The Advocate General Jacobs essentially considers the unilateral restriction in the supply of pharmaceutical products as a proportionate measure that could be used also by a dominant pharmaceutical undertaking in order to defend its commercial interest, regardless of the fact that it aims thereby to limit parallel trade.

If the ECJ follows the approach set out in the Advocate General's opinion, it would be likely to make it significantly more difficult for the European Commission and other competition authorities to attack a unilateral refusal to supply by a dominant pharmaceutical company aimed at limiting parallel imports. Such a decision would compliment the ECJ's decision in the Bayer case which found that Bayer's actions to limit supplies to wholesalers constituted unilateral conduct and was, therefore, outside the scope of the Article 81 prohibition on anti-competitive agreements. The two cases would provide a robust legal basis for supply quota systems other measures constructed and operated on a unilateral basis.

The Advocate General's opinion makes clear that his opinion relates specifically to the pharmaceutical sector and is unlikely to apply to other industries.

The ECJ's judgment in the matter is unlikely to be delivered before spring or early summer 2005.


1. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-53/03 Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and others v Glaxosmithcline AEVE.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions