In the United Kingdom nine different slide tests and five different tube tests are marketed by 11 different enterprises. On the other hand it is taken into account that the export prohibitions imposed on the German dealers had little practical significance since prices in other markets were and continued to be lower and exports therefore of no interest. Every influence on this trade has an appreciable effect, especially when price differences exist to an appreciable extent e. EU case law Case law Digital reports Directory of case law. The imposition of export bans on trade between Member States must always be regarded as a particularly grave infringement, justifying the imposition of fines reflecting this fact. They said they felt that they knew the possible source of the supply to Mohringer and would take every step to eliminate the “Gravindex problem”.
|Date Added:||13 September 2010|
|File Size:||69.27 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They were aimed at preventing buyers in the United Kingdom and Germany from reselling the products of Ortho UK and Trundig Alsbach to other countries frundig the common market countries and thus from competing in those countries.
Of these enterprises Organon is the most important, next is Burroughs Wellcome, and Ortho UK takes the third place with a market share of about The product Gravindex pregnancy tests appears in those price lists from on.
In determining the gravity of the infringement it must be taken into account that Ortho UK and Cilag Alsbach sought to prevent exports gryndig chemists in a determined and vigorous manner and continued to do this even after the formal export prohibitions were removed from Ortho’s terms of trading.
Thirdly, Ortho UK might change the Gravindex trade mark.
EUR-Lex – D – EN – EUR-Lex
Its proprietors are Andreas Mohringer, a chemist, and H. The prohibition on exports by British dealers to other EEC Member States prevented the Gravindex products from the United Kingdom, where the prices were the lowest in the EEC, having an influence on the higher price levels up to 3 times higher in other Member States.
These contracts are agreements between undertakings within the meaning of Article 85 1. In the United Kingdom nine different slide tests and five different tube tests are marketed by 11 different enterprises.
The means employed included measures to identify the exporters, threatening to cut off a dealer’s supplies and even a refusal to supply certain chemists by withholding supplies totally or by drastically limiting them. Moreover, in grundiy case the export prohibition imposed by Ortho UK had restrictive effects.
After threatening to withhold supplies from the chemist in Aprilwhen Gravindex pregnancy tests originating from him continued 1001 appear on the German market, in MayOrtho stopped supplies of the products to certain chemists who, in Ortho UK’s view, were apparently supplying German undertakings.
These proceedings deal only with pregnancy tests intended to be carried out in the laboratory.
Despite the January change the search for Mohringer’s Eurim Pharm’s source of supply was pursued. The firm is engaged simply in assembly, packaging and marketing of products obtained from Cilag Schaffhausen.
It is of no relevance therefore to know if the company was aware that it infringed Article 85 1 5.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
These facts show that the amendment of the export prohibition by Ortho UK was a pure fiction. Such a condition has as its object to impede trade between Member States or to confine such trade to channels chosen by the undertaking imposing the prohibition.
The continued efforts to prevent dealers from exporting compelled those dealers to accept the fact that exporting was still not allowed.
The inclusion a by Ortho Pharmaceutical Ltd of an export prohibition for the product Gravindex in the UK trade price lists from 1 January to 1 January.
Help Print this page. They said they felt that they knew 1001 possible source of the supply to Mohringer and would take every step to eliminate the “Gravindex problem”.
Article 85 1 is applicable even if the export prohibitions were not always enforced as the exporting dealers’ supplies were constantly at risk in the event of the exports becoming known to the supplier. Thus three of the four possibilities for action against exports of Gravindex slide tests as indicated in the letter from Ortho UK of 18 May were put into effect.
Gravindex belongs to the first sub-type. On 7 AprilOrtho UK wrote to the retail chemist in London, the supposed exporter of Gravindex tests, threatening to cut off his supplies. Ortho UK’s intention, to restrict competition within ggundig common market, appears clearly from its efforts to discover, at the request and with the assistance of Cilag Alsbach, the dealers supplying Gravindex pregnancy tests to the German importer Eurim Pharm.
After the date of Cilag Schaffhausen’s letter of 22 March to Dr Fuller see point 18the group continued to operate the policy of partitioning the common market. It brundig been informed of the “very unpleasant and important problem” of parallel imports and nevertheless did not stop the policy of its affiliates of preventing such parallel imports, which would have influenced the price differences.
By test purchase from Eurim Pharm, Cilag Alsbach Obtained possession of a Gravindex package which was specially identified by the batch number and also by a triangular piece cut out of the grunddig insert see letter from Cilag Alsbach to Ortho UK of 4 February The prohibition of exports from the United Kingdom continued to be applied after the amendment of the terms of trading in January Ortho UK must have known that such a clause and the abovementioned practices had as their object and effect a restriction of competition within the common market.
Ortho UK claims that the delay in deliveries was caused by an unprecedented increase of orders in the second half of so that from MayOrtho UK had an excess of orders on hand over its stocks.
In the UK trade price gdundig, applied by Ortho UK until Januarya provision was embodied prohibiting export from the United Kingdom except by prior arrangement. EU case law Case law Digital reports Directory of case law.