This paper summarizes the legal arguments held by the
European Court of Justice ruling the IMS-Health case, where
European Competition Law and European Intellectual Property
Law were placed vis-à-vis. The evolution of the Doctrine of
Essential Facilities in the European case law is addressed
in this comment emphasizing that new human creations such
as those protected by copyrights, justify a renewed approach
to the mentioned doctrine and that the rule of law held in the
past years cannot be straightforwardly applied to all modern
inventions and facilities. The sources for the research are
Magill and Bronner’s test on refusal to deal under article 82 of 

the Treaty Establishing the European Union (Competition
Law Regulation). The paper concludes that IMS-Health case
opened the discussion for determining how the two legal
frameworks (Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law)
should be balanced.