This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0783
Case T-783/17: Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission
Case T-783/17: Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission
Case T-783/17: Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission
IO C 42, 5.2.2018, pp. 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)
|
5.2.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 42/34 |
Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission
(Case T-783/17)
(2018/C 042/48)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the European Commission’s decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017 suspending the applicant’s marketing authorisations for Omniscan (INN gadodiamide); |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present matter. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the precautionary principle. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of non-discrimination. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event disproportionate. |
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the general principle of good administration. |
(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).