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-602/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0602

62019CN0602

August 9, 2019
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

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/24

(Case C-602/19)

(2019/C 357/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kohlpharma GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

1.Do the principle of the free movement of goods laid down in Article 34 TFEU and the principles, developed on that basis, of the parallel import of medicinal products require the national authorising authority to consent to an amendment to the indications regarding the dosage of a parallel-imported medicinal product even if the reference authorisation has expired and the amendment is substantiated with an adoption of the indications regarding a domestically produced medicinal product with essentially the same active ingredient and different form of administration in combination with the indications approved in the exporting State for the parallel-imported medicinal product?

2.Against the background of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU, can the national authority refuse to consent to such an amendment by noting that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports and, due to the lack of a domestic reference authorisation, there is no current data on the risk-benefit assessment, the existing domestic authorisation concerns a different form of administration and relates to a different active ingredient concentration from the authorisation for the same form of administration in the exporting State, and the combination of two forms of administration in the information texts is moreover inconceivable?

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