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-44/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — AbbVie v EMA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0044

62013TN0044

January 29, 2013
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

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/31

(Case T-44/13)

2013/C 79/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AbbVie, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); and AbbVie Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/748792/2012 of 14 January 2013 granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medicinal product; and

Order the European Medicines Agency to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and the applicants’ fundamental rights to the protection of confidential commercial information.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(4) of the Transparency Regulation and the principle of good administration.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the obligation to state reasons as regards the application of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of legitimate expectations

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Directive 2001/29/EC (2), the fundamental rights protecting property rights, including copyright and the principle of proportionality and good administration, insofar as the access is granted by providing a copy of the documents.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

(2) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)

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