The Commission’s rejection follows similar rejections by the Greek courts and the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC), and offers useful guidance for pharmaceutical companies considering the reorganization of their distribution networks. Although dated 12 March 2026, the Commission’s decision was not published until 19 June 2026.

Background

Up until the end of 2012, Amgen distributed its products Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) and Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa) in Greece through a distributor. Wholesalers, including Profarm, purchased the products from the distributor and exported a significant proportion to higher-price EU Member States.

From 1 January 2013, due to Greek regulatory reforms, Amgen’s products were placed on a list of expensive medicines available to insured Greek patients exclusively through hospital and public pharmacies. In this context, Amgen’s relationship with its distributor ceased and Amgen began to distribute its products directly to hospitals and public pharmacies (and declined orders from wholesalers, including Profarm).

Prior Complaint to Greek Competition Authority

Profarm filed a complaint to the HCC slightly before filing its complaint to the Commission. The HCC evaluated the complaint and issued a rejection decision in 2017. While this decision was initially annulled by the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal on procedural grounds, the Greek Council of State set it aside on a procedural ground, with the result that the original HCC decision was restored to operative effect, though the case has been referred back to the Administrative Court of Appeal for further review. In these proceedings, it was determined that Amgen’s switch to direct distribution was an objectively justified commercial response to the regulatory reform, applied uniformly to all wholesalers, aimed at rationalising distribution costs, and did not have an adverse effect on patient supply.

Importantly, it was recognised that even a dominant undertaking is entitled to change its distribution network, provided the change pursues a legitimate business interest, is proportionate and non-discriminatory, and is aimed at economic efficiency.

Prior Civil Action in Greek Courts

Separately, in 2014, Profarm brought a civil action for damages before the Athens courts. The Multi-Member Court of First Instance dismissed the entire claim as substantively unfounded. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that, irrespective of whether Amgen held a dominant position, no abusive conduct had been identified and the refusal to supply was objectively justified as a response to the regulatory reform. In 2024, the Court of Cassation rejected Profarm’s further appeal.

The Commission’s Assessment

The Commission dismissed Profarm’s complaint concerning Amgen’s conduct in Greece without any substantive assessment. Pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission may reject a complaint where the conduct has already been addressed by a national competition authority. The Commission determined that the allegations had already been addressed by the HCC, which evaluated the same actions, same undertakings, same geographic market, and same timeframe. The Commission also noted that the HCC was well placed to assess the alleged conduct, including any effects on parallel trade.

The Commission also rejected Profarm’s additional claim that the refusal to supply formed part of a wider pan-European infringement in other low-price Member States. On this point, the Commission determined that (i) Profarm lacked legitimate interest to raise a complaint as it had no commercial presence in the other low-price Member States where the alleged refusal to supply took place, and (ii) Profarm had failed to provide any concrete evidence of a refusal to supply in any other Member State.

Key Takeaways

• There is scope for dominant pharmaceutical companies to amend existing distribution systems. This case demonstrates that there are circumstances where a company may legitimately amend its distribution system and switch to direct supply, even if the change results in exclusion of existing wholesalers. In this case, the competition authorities recognized that Amgen’s switch to direct distribution was justified in light of the regulatory changes in Greece and was implemented in a proportionate and non-discriminatory manner.
• Caution is still required. This case does not indicate that dominant pharmaceutical companies may change distribution systems at will. The legal principles established in the separate competition law case concerning GSK’s switch to a direct distribution system remain in force (Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06, Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE). Thus, an unjustified refusal to supply the ordinary orders of existing wholesalers may constitute an abuse if a pharmaceutical company is dominant. Nevertheless, this case concerning Amgen is positive as it demonstrates that legitimate justifications exist in practice (not just on paper), and companies may be able to successfully change to direct distribution.
• Complainants do not get two bites at the apple.The Commission’s decision illustrates the Commission’s broad discretion under Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to reject complaints where a national competition authority has already dealt with the same practice. The decision also makes clear that complaining parties cannot simply submit unsubstantiated claims about practices in other countries in order to try to get the Commission to consider a complaint that has already been rejected by a national competition authority.