Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62014TN0684

    Case T-684/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Krka/Commission

    OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.12.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 431/34

    Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Krka/Commission

    (Case T-684/14)

    (2014/C 431/57)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Krka Tovarna Zdravil d.d. (Novo Mesto, Slovenia) (represented by: T. Ilešič and M. Kocmut, lawyers).

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission’s decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier), served on the applicant on 11 July 2014, in so far as it concerns the applicant, in particular Articles 4, 7(4)(a), 8 and 9;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

    —

    order such other measures as justice may require.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to properly analyse the legal, factual and economic context of the applicant's situation.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly concluded that the applicant and Servier were actual or potential competitors under Article 101 TFEU.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission's wrong conclusion that the patent settlement concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU rests on erroneous factual and legal analysis as well as on a wrongful application of the established principles on restrictions by object.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s right of defence by inconsistently examining the Assignment and Licence Agreement and erred in concluding that the Assignment and Licence Agreement amounts to a restriction of competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the agreements concluded between the applicant and Servier restricted competition by effect under Article 101(1) TFEU.

    6.

    Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to accurately assess the arguments raised by the applicant under Article 101(3) TFEU.
    Top