- 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-460/13: Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Ranbaxy Laboratories and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0460
62013TN0460
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
9.11.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 325/43
(Case T-460/13)
2013/C 325/71
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (Haryana, Inde); and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Annul Article 1(4) of the Commission Decision in case COMP/39.226 — Lundbeck (citalopram) of 19 June 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, insofar as it concerns the applicants;
—Annul Article 2(4) of the Commission Decision in case COMP/39.226 — Lundbeck (citalopram) of 19 June 2013, insofar as it imposes fines on the applicants or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; and
—Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in concluding that the Settlement Agreement entered into by the applicants qualified as an ‘object type’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its determination that the parties to the Settlement Agreement were at least potential competitors. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement by concluding that it afforded greater protection than that which could have obtained through enforcement of the process patent. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its calculation of the penalty imposed on the applicants and as such the penalty is unjustified and disproportionate.