First Belgian ruling on abuse of economic dependence: much looked forward too, little precedential value?
On 20 November 2020, the Investigation and Prosecution Service of the Belgian Competition Authority announced that it had submitted a motivated proposal for decision to the President of the Belgian Competition Authority regarding alleged anticompetitive practices committed by Caudalie
Het Hof van Beroep te Brussel oordeelde dat communicatie gericht aan klanten van een concurrent ter actualisering van klantenbestanden in de mate die communicatie manifest verwarring stichtend en misleidend is, onrechtmatige afwerving van cliënteel kan uitmaken.1
Nearly one year ago, the EU Parliament adopted the directive No 2019/2161 (better known as the “Omnibus Directive”) as a result of the “New deal for consumers” initiative.
Doorheen de jaren is er al veel inkt gevloeid over de wettigheid van de sperperioderegeling (verbod op prijsverminderingen tijdens de sperperiode) in het licht van Richtlijn 2005/29/EG1 (“Richtlijn oneerlijke marktpraktijken”)2
Nadat België zijn regels inzake prijsverminderingsaankondigingen heeft moeten afschaffen, zal het nu ten gevolge van EU-richtlijn 2019/2161 opnieuw aangepaste regels moeten invoeren.
With the Law of 4 April 2019 concerning the abuse of economic dependence, unfair clauses and unfair market practices in B2B relations (the “B2B Law”), the Belgian legislator has introduced a prohibition on 'unfair clauses' in agreements between enterprises.
With the Law of 4 April 2019 concerning the abuse of economic dependence, unfair clauses and unfair market practices in B2B relations (the “B2B Law”), the Belgian legislator has introduced a prohibition on 'unfair clauses' in agreements between enterprises.
With the Law of 4 April 2019 concerning the abuse of economic dependence, unfair clauses and unfair market practices in B2B relations (the “B2B Law”), the Belgian legislator has introduced a prohibition on 'unfair clauses' in agreements between enterprises.
If a branded medicine and its generic version are put on the EEA market by economically-linked undertakings, is a parallel importer then allowed to rebrand and repackage the imported generic version as the branded reference medicine?
