EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-198/19 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2019 by Teva UK Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-679/14: Teva UK Ltd and Others v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0198

62019CN0198

February 28, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

13.5.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/29

(Case C-198/19 P)

(2019/C 164/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Teva UK Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (represented by: D. Tayar, avocat, A. Richard, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Generic medicines Association AISBL (EGA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

accept the appeal and declare the action admissible;

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 in case T-679/14;

refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision to be taken, unless the Court considers that it is sufficiently well informed to annul Commission Decision COMP/AT.39612 (1) ‘Perindopril (Servier)’ of 9 July 2014 insofar as it finds that Teva UK limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited infringed Article 101 of the TFEU and cancel the fine imposed Teva UK limited, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, and

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs incurred by the appellants before this Court and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants put forward three pleas in law to support their request:

1.The General Court erred in law in the standard applied to assess whether Teva was a potential competitor to Servier.

2.The General Court erred in law in finding that the agreement was restrictive of competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU.

3.The General Court erred in law in its application of Article 101(3) TFEU.

Summary of Commission Decision of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)) (notified under document C(2014) 4955) (JO 2016 C 393, p. 7).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia