- 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: Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0783
62017TN0783
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
5.2.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 42/34
(Case T-783/17)
(2018/C 042/48)
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
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the European Commission’s decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017 suspending the applicant’s marketing authorisations for Omniscan (INN gadodiamide);
—order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present matter.
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 contested decision infringes Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the precautionary principle.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of non-discrimination.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event disproportionate.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the general principle of good administration.
(1) 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).