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-178/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0178

62018CN0178

March 7, 2018
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

(Case C-178/18 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV (represented by: P. Bogaert, advocaat, B. Kelly, Solicitor, J. Stratford QC, C. Thomas, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

grant the appellants’ appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court;

annul the decision communicated by the EMA to the appellants on 3 December 2015 to release certain information under the Transparency Regulation (1); and

order the EMA to pay the appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment should be annulled for the following reasons:

the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue were protected by a general presumption of confidentiality;

the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue in their entirety constitute commercially confidential information that is protected by Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation;

the General Court failed to find that the documents in issue should be protected by Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation; and

the EMA failed to carry out a balancing exercise as required by law.

*

(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).

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