EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0178
Case C-178/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency
Case C-178/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency
Case C-178/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency
OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case C-178/18 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency
Appeal brought on 7 March 2018 by MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 February 2018 in Case T-729/15: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet international BV v European Medicines Agency
(Case C-178/18 P)
2018/C 231/10Language of the case: EnglishParties
Appellants: MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH, Intervet international BV (represented by: P. Bogaert, advocaat, B. Kelly, Solicitor, J. Stratford QC, C. Thomas, Barrister)
Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
grant the appellants’ appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court; |
|
— |
annul the decision communicated by the EMA to the appellants on 3 December 2015 to release certain information under the Transparency Regulation ( 1 ); and |
|
— |
order the EMA to pay the appellants’ 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).