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-2/24 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2024 by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Cephalon Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 October 2023 in Case T-74/21, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Cephalon v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0002

62024CN0002

January 4, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/1547

26.2.2024

(Case C-2/24 P)

(C/2024/1547)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Cephalon Inc. (represented by: S. Ortoli, D. Tayar, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

accept the present appeal and declare the action admissible;

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2023 in the case T-74/21;

refer the case back to the General Court for a new judgment to be taken, unless the Court considers that it is sufficiently well informed to annul the decision of the European Commission in the case AT.39686-CEPHALON (1);

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 two pleas in law to support their request:

1.The judgment is vitiated by a manifest error of law as it distorted the test laid out in Generics UK for the analysis of the alleged by-object restriction of the settlement agreement.

2.The judgment is vitiated by a manifest error of law in its finding that the settlement agreement was restrictive of competition by effect.

Decision of 26 November 2020.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1547/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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