Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007CN0527

Case C-527/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2007 — Generics (UK) Ltd, Regina v Licensing Authority (acting via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 36–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/36


Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2007 — Generics (UK) Ltd, Regina v Licensing Authority (acting via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

(Case C-527/07)

(2008/C 22/64)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd, Regina

Defendant: Licensing Authority (acting via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

Questions referred

(1)

Where a medicinal product falling outside the scope of the Annex to Regulation 2309/93 (1) has been placed on the market in a Member State, (Austria) under its national authorisation procedure prior to the accession of that Member State to the EEA or the EC and:

(a)

that Member State has subsequently acceded to the EEA and then the EC, and as part of the conditions of its accession it has transposed into its national law the authorisation provisions of Directive 65/65 (now Directive 2001/83 (2)), no transitional provisions applying in this respect;

(b)

the product in question has remained on the market in that Member State for some years after its accession to the EEA and the EC;

(c)

following the accession of that Member State to the EEA and the EE, the marketing authorisation for the product in question has been varied by adding a new indication, and the variation was considered by the authorities of that Member State to be consistent with the requirements of Community law;

(d)

the dossier of the product in question was not updated in accordance with Directive 65/65 (now Directive 2001/83) after that Member State's accession to the EEA and the EC; and

(e)

a product containing the same active ingredient has subsequently been authorised under Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 and placed on the market in the EC;

is the medicinal product to be considered to be ‘a reference medicinal product which is or has been authorised under Article 6 … in a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83, and if so which of the above conditions is/are decisive in this respect?

(2)

In circumstances where the competent authority of a reference Member State erroneously refuses an application for a marketing authorisation made under Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83 in the context of the decentralised procedure provided for in that Directive, on the ground that the medicinal product referred to in Question 1 above was not a ‘reference medicinal product’ within the meaning of Article 10(1), what guidance, if any, does the Court of Justice think it appropriate to provide as to which circumstances the national court ought to take into consideration when it comes to determine whether the breach of Community law is a sufficiently serious breach within the meaning of the judgment in Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame?


(1)  OJ L 214 p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 311 p. 67.


Top