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 T-12/12: Action brought on 12 January 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0012

62012TN0012

January 12, 2012
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

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/15

(Case T-12/12)

2012/C 58/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley, Solicitor, and M. Barnden, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the defendant has unlawfully failed to act, contrary to Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004;

In the alternative, annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2011 declining to grant a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004; and

Order the defendant to bear the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging, with regard to the action for failure to act lodged pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the refusal to adopt a final decision on the application for an authorisation for Orphacol is contrary to the requirements of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

2.Second plea in law, alleging, with regard to the action of annulment lodged pursuant to Article 263 TFEU in the alternative, that by adopting a decision that was rejected by the Standing Committee and the Appeal Committee under the Comitology Procedure, the defendant is in breach of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

3.Third plea in law, alleging with regard to the action of annulment lodged pursuant to Article 263 TFEU in the alternative, that the decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended), and defects of reasoning contrary to Article 296 TFEU.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

(2) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13)

(3) 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)

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