The reform of the EU courts (II). Abandoning the management approach by doubling the General Court. Egmont Paper 83, March 2016

The 2011 proposal of the European Court of Justice aiming to increase the number of judges of the General Court has mutated after four years into a complete change of the EU judicial system. This long legislative debate was the first implementation of the Lisbon Treaty in the judicial domain. It has revealed different problems – formal and substantial – of the approach of public service reform in the European institutions.

In-house lawyers of NRAs may not represent their clients before the European Court of Justice: A case note on UKE (2011). Research Papers in Law, 3/2011

From the Introduction. It is not frequent for a National Regulation Authority (NRA) to bring an action against the Commission decision and, cynically speaking, case Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej2 v Commission3 shows that the avoidance of a sweeping retaliation may be one of the reasons for it. The General Court followed the Commission‟s argument that, notwithstanding the peculiarities of the employment conditions of the Polish Regulator‟s legal counsel giving it virtually full independence, as well as the fact that the Polish law itself does not differentiate between in-house counsel and third party attorneys, the claim should be rejected on the grounds of inadmissibility. The GC based its judgment on Art 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice4, which requires that, with the exception of the Member States' Governments and the EU Institutions, parties to the dispute must be represented by a lawyer. In so doing, the Court explicitly referred to the infamous Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission5 and EREF v Commission6. Most importantly, the Court stated that the lawyers representing Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (UKE) are bound to enjoy a degree of independence inferior to that of lawyers who are not linked to their clients by an employment contract7.

Ten Years of Judicial Cooperation. Occasional Paper 4/2014

This paper intends to illustrate the respective roles and functions of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the one hand, and the Maltese national courts on the other. It will then define the scope and role of the judicial cooperation between the CJEU and the national courts, highlighting the procedure relating to the preliminary rulings. The paper will then briefly describe the cases brought before the CJEU involving Malta, including those concerning requests for preliminary rulings originating from Malta, and the direct actions by the European Commission before the Court of Justice, as well as those before the General Court. After a description of the rationale behind the publication of the book Malta u l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea (Malta and the Court of Justice of the European Union), and following the conference in which it was presented, the main points that emerged from the conference will serve as a backdrop to some statistical analysis pertaining to the Maltese cases, as well as some reflections on the current situation of the judicial cooperation obtained after ten years. It will propose that, besides a mere statistical analysis of the raw figures that emerge, one must rather address his attention to the spirit of EU membership, and reflect on whether Malta’s legal system has actually absorbed and understood the full meaning of the EU membership, ten years after it took place.

Drug Reformulation Regulatory Gaming in Pharmaceuticals: Enforcement & Innovation Implications

This article examines drug reformulation regulatory gaming as a vehicle for analyzing the way in which European courts and the Commission are currently approaching innovation issues in the pharmaceutical sector. First, the economics literature regarding pharmaceutical innovation is briefly summarized. Next, the phenomenon of regulatory gaming is introduced, followed by an analysis of the two primary theories of harm being used to address drug reformulations as a competition concern. In comparing the recent General Court decision in AstraZeneca to earlier U.S. court cases addressing similar conduct, it is asserted that these approaches differ in significant ways with regards to preservation of innovation incentives as well as on the basis of institutional and evidentiary concerns. Finally, this discussion is then placed into the broader context of the ongoing debate regarding pharmaceutical innovation that first surfaced in the Syfait cases—in particular, the desirability of sector-specific competition law analysis of pharmaceutical innovation.