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 T-483/22: Action brought on 4 August 2022 — Genzyme Europe v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0483

62022TN0483

August 4, 2022
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

24.10.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/36

(Case T-483/22)

(2022/C 408/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Genzyme Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Bogaert, B. Van Vooren and M. Oyarzabal Arigita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision that avalglucosidase alfa does not qualify as a ‘new active substance’, as contained in, or at least implied by, Commission Decision C(2022) 4531 final of 24 June 2022;

annul Article 5 of that Commission Decision, providing that the medicinal product Nexviadyme — avalglucosidase alfa shall not be classified as an orphan medicinal product; and

order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 (1) and of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) and a manifest error of assessment, combined with inadequate statement of reasons (against the first part of the contested decision, refusing the status of ‘new active substance’).

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (against the first part of the contested decision, refusing the status of ‘new active substance’).

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products, (3) manifest error of assessment and inadequate statement of reasons (against the second part of the contested decision — withdrawal of orphan designation).

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), as amended.

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), as amended.

Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1), as amended.

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