1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ECJ Allows Dominant Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Refusal To Supply In Order To Defend Legitimate Commercial Interests

ECJ Allows Dominant Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Refusal To Supply In Order To Defend Legitimate Commercial Interests

Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.16.08

While in 2005 the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") (Case C-53/03 - Syfait and others v. GlaxoSmithKline) refused to rule on the application of Art. 82 EC to supply quota systems because the referring Greek competition authority was not found to be a court within the meaning of Art. 234 EC, the ECJ held today (Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06 - Sot. Lelos and others v. GlaxoSmithKline) that a pharmaceutical company would not abuse its dominant position, if "the refusal […] to supply wholesalers involved in parallel exports constitutes a reasonable and proportionate measure in relation to the threat that those exports represent to its legitimate commercial interests […]" (para. 70). Should a dominant pharmaceutical company, however, refuse to meet "ordinary" orders from a wholesaler, it is abusing its dominant position (para. 77). According to the ECJ, the crucial factors to determine whether a wholesaler is ordering "ordinary" orders are:

  • the size of the orders in relation to the requirement of the market of a given Member State and
  • the previous business relationship with a given wholesaler (para. 73).

Accordingly, in light of the specifics of the regulated pharmaceutical markets in Europe, the ECJ left the door open for quota systems in the pharmaceutical sector. It is interesting to note that today's ruling takes a middle course between Advocate General Jacobs' view to largely allow a refusal to supply based on objective market factors (cf. opinion delivered for case C-53/03 GlaxoSmithKline), and Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer's view that dominant pharmaceutical manufacturers have to provide conclusive evidence that the refusal to supply was required by the market situation (opinion delivered in this case). In any event, the judgment is likely to have ramifications for the whole pharmaceutical sector where prices are directly or indirectly controlled by governments.

Please find below the references to today's decision and the diverging opinions of the Advocate Generals.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights