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
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)
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.
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).
* * *