- 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-472/12: Action brought on 30 October 2012 — Novartis Europharm v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0472
62012TN0472
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
15.12.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 389/8
(Case T-472/12)
2012/C 389/13
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Novartis Europharm (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2012) 5894 final of 16 August 2012 to grant a marketing authorisation to Teva Pharma BV, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1); and
—Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the data protection rights of Novartis Europharm Ltd. for its product Aclasta pursuant to Articles 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2309/93, read in conjunction with Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. As Aclasta was granted a separate independent marketing authorisation through the centralised procedure, the Aclasta authorisation does not fall under the same global marketing authorisation as Zometa (another product of Novartis Europharm Ltd), as specified in article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC.
In addition, the contested decision is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC as data protection for the reference medicinal product Aclasta has not expired and hence the conditions for granting a marketing authorisation under this article have not been complied with.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 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)