2002/165/EC: Commission Decision of 3 July 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP D3/38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim measures) (notified under document number C(2001) 1695) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Data as of 2026-07-04 · Compiled from an official source version. Later amendments or repeals may not be reflected; the official text prevails. · Read the official text ↗
IMS Health (IMS) is hereby required to grant a licence without delay to all undertakings currently present on the market for German regional sales data services, on request and on a non-discriminatory basis, for the use of the 1860-brick structure, in order to permit the use of and sales by such undertakings of regional sales data formatted according to this structure.
In any licensing agreements relating to the 1860-brick structure, any royalties to be paid for these licences shall be determined by agreement between IMS and the undertaking requesting the licence ("the parties"). If an agreement has not been reached within two weeks of the date of the request for a licence, appropriate royalties will be determined by one or several independent experts. The expert(s) will be chosen by agreement of the parties within one week of the parties' failure to agree on a licence fee. If an agreement on the identity of the expert(s) has not been reached within this time, the Commission shall appoint an expert or several experts from a list of candidates provided by the parties, or, if appropriate, choose one or several suitably qualified person(s). The parties will make available to the expert(s) any document which the expert(s) consider necessary or useful to carry out their task. The expert(s) shall be bound by professional secrecy and shall not disclose any evidence or documents to third parties except to the Commission. The expert(s) will make a determination on the basis of transparent and objective criteria, within two weeks of being chosen to carry out this task. The expert(s) will communicate this determination without delay to the Commission for approval. The Commission's Decision shall be final and take effect immediately.
A penalty of EUR 1000 per day shall be payable in respect of any period during which IMS fails to comply with the provisions of this Decision.
The provisions of this Decision shall apply until notification of the decision concluding the proceedings.
This Decision is addressed to IMS Health of Harewood Avenue, London NW1, United Kingdom. Done at Strasbourg, 3 July 2001. For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62. (2) OJ L 148, 15.6.1999, p. 5. (3) OJ L 354, 30.12.1998, p. 18. (4) Group AzyX is composed of Pharma Groupe SA, a holding company set up in February 1999 under Luxemburg law and five national subsidiaries: AzyX Belgium, AzyX Deutschland GmbH Geopharma Information Services, AzyX servicos de Geomarketing Farmaceutico Lda, AzyX Polska Geopharma Information services Sp.z.o.o. (all set up in 1999) and is active on the same markets as IMS and NDC. (5) There are 16 wholesalers in Germany. On average three wholesalers serve each pharmacy. (6) Only 15 % is purchased by the pharmacies directly from the manufacturers and not through wholesalers. (7) Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz) as most recently amended on 23 May 2001. (8) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. (9) DHM: Dr. Haase Managementsysteme. (10) GFD: Gesellschaft für Datenverarbeitung mbH. (11) IDV - Bodenheim. (12) P & P: P & P Software u. Consulting GmbH. (13) OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20. (14) Case 792/79 R, Camera Care v Commission [1980] ECR 119. (15) Joined Cases 228 and 229/82 Ford v Commission [1984] ECR 1129. (16) Case T-23/90 Peugeot v Commission [1991] ECR II-653. (17) Case T-44/90 [1992] ECRII-1. (18) Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207. (19) Case T-504/93 Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission [1997] ECR II-923. (20) Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche [1979] ECR 461. (21) Case C-62/86 AKZO Chemie BV v Commission [1991] ECR I-3359. (22) Cases T-24/93, T-25/93, T-26/93 and T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1201. (23) Cases 40-48, 50, 54-56, 111, 113-114/73 Cooperatieve Vereniging Suiker Unie and others v Commission [1975] ECR 1663. (24) Case 77/77 BP v Commission [1998] ECR 1513. (25) Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG. v Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG. [1998] ECR I-7791. (26) Cases 6/73 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial solvents [1974] ECR 223. (27) Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207. (28) Case 238/87 AB Volvo v Erik Veng (UK) Ltd [1988] ECR 6211. (29) Joined cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P. Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1995] ECR I-0743. (30) In particular Essex, Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Schering and Solvay. (31) Aventis, Robugen, Hermal, Dr Winzer Pharma, Dr Mann, Stada and TAD, Berlin Chemie and Amgen. (32) Original text: Je nach Auswertung werden unterschiedliche Anzahlen von Jahresdaten benötigt. In der Regel 2-5 Jahre. (33) Original text: Wir brauchen vergleichbar Vorjahreszeiträume von minimal 3 Jahren für Marktforschung und Incentiveberechnungen. (34) Original text: Wir nutzen für unsere Planungen und Gebietsentwicklungen die Verganheitsdaten von 3 Jahren. (35) Strategic performance benchmarking 1998 for 23 pharmaceutical companies. (36) Original text: Im Falle von Zusammenschluss oder Akquisition ist eine Umstrukturierung unvermeidlich und muss akzeptiert werden. Eine Umstrukturierung durch Wechsel des Datenanbieters ist kaum zu akzeptieren, da ausser den technischen Umstellungskosten die Verluste durch Wegfall der Beziehungen nicht abzuschätzen sind. (37) The Heilmittelwerbegesetz, or Law on advertising in the health care system. (38) See for example John Temple-Lang in Defining legitimate competition: companies' duties to supply competitors, and access to essential facilities, (1994) Fordham Corporate Law Institute, at 286: "The practice of the industry and the expectation of buyers or users may make it essential to have access to a facility that in other circumstances might not be essential". (39) See also the judgement of the Court of First Instance in the Ladbroke case. The Court of First Instance rejected (paragraph 132) the argument put forward by Ladbroke in saying (emphasis added) that transmission is not indispensable, since it takes place after bets are placed, with the result that its absence does not in itself affect the choices made by bettors and, accordingly, cannot prevent bookmakers from pursuing their business. It is therefore clear that the Court of First Instance took the interests of customers into account in forming its view on the indispensability of transmission of sounds and pictures of horse racing. (40) Including the following companies: Abbott, Krewel Meuselbach, Bionorica Arzneimittel, Lilly Deutschland, Engelhardt Arzneimittel, Merck, Pohl-Boskamp, Novo Nordisk, Galderma Laboratorium, Schering Deutschland, Hormosan-Kwizda, Solvay Arzneimittel, Klinge. (41) See Case T-144/99, paragraph 50: Even if that were the case, the principle of the hierarchy of norms precludes this provision in a measure of secondary legislation from permitting a derogation from a Treaty provision. (42) Concluded in 1886 for the protection of literary and artistic works and as last revised at Paris in 1971. (43) World Trade Organisation's agreement on trade related apects of intellectual property rights. Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994. (44) Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention contains very similar wording.
Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), © European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.