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-718/15: Action brought on 9 December 2015 — PTC Therapeutics International v EMA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0718

62015TN0718

December 9, 2015
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/37

(Case T-718/15)

(2016/C 059/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Demetriou, QC, C. Thomas, Barrister, G. Castle, B. Kelly and H. Billson, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/722323/2015 of 25 November 2015 to grant a third party access to the information about a medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), in so far as the decision concerns commercially confidential information the release of which will infringe the applicant’s rights and in so far as the decision is prohibited by EU law;

remit the contested decision back to the EMA for further consideration regarding redaction of confidential passages in consultation with the applicant; and,

order the EMA to pay all costs in these proceedings.

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 document at issue is protected by Article 4(2) and/or Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the document at issue in its entirety constitutes commercially confidential information that is protected by Article 4(2) of the said Regulation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the release of the document would undermine the EMA’s decision making process.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EMA failed to carry out a balancing exercise as required by law.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the outcome of a proper balancing exercise, as required by law, would have been a decision not to release any part of the document.

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