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
Language of the case: English
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
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.
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).