- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-783/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 – GE Healthcare v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Suspension of the marketing authorisation for gadolinium-containing contrast agents — Articles 31 and 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Precautionary principle — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Impartiality)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0783
62017TA0783
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
C 406/28
(Case T-783/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the marketing authorisation for gadolinium-containing contrast agents - Articles 31 and 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Precautionary principle - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Impartiality)
(2019/C 406/36)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)
Re:
Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017, concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), the marketing authorisations for gadolinium-containing contrast agents for human use which contain one or more of the active substances ‘gadobenic acid, gadobutrol, gadodiamide, gadopentetic acid, gadoteric acid, gadoteridol, gadoversetamide and gadoxetic acid’, in so far as that decision concerns Omniscan.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders GE Healthcare A/S to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.