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-175/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2018 by PTC Therapeutics International Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-718/15: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v European Medicines Agency (EMA)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0175

62018CN0175

March 6, 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-175/18 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (represented by: G. Castle, Solicitor, B. Kelly, Solicitor, K. Ewert, Rechtsanwalt, M. Demetriou QC, C. Thomas, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency, European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

annul the decision communicated by the EMA to PTC on 25 November 2015 to release certain information under the Transparency Regulation (1);

remit the said decision back to the EMA for further consideration regarding redaction of confidential passages for consultation with PTC; and

order the EMA to pay PTC’s 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