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 62012TN0140

    Case T-140/12: Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

    SL C 165, 9.6.2012, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.6.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 165/26

    Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

    (Case T-140/12)

    2012/C 165/45

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Teva Pharma BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Anderson, QC (Queen’s Counsel), K. Bacon, Barrister, G. Morgan and C. Drew, Solicitors)

    Defendant: European Medicines Agency

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency, contained in its letter of 24 January 2012, refusing to validate the applicants’ application for a marketing authorisation;

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the refusal to validate their application for the authorisation of a generic version of an orphan medicinal product is contrary to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) properly interpreted. In particular, it is contrary to the wording and effect of Article 8, as well as the policy underlying the said regulation and its travaux préparatoires, to exclude a generic version of an orphan medicinal product from the market for more than the ten year period stipulated in Article 8(1) of the said regulation. The applicants further allege that Article 8(3) permits an authorisation for a similar product to be granted during that 10 year period, by way of derogation from Article 8(1), in certain specified circumstances. Such authorisation should not, however, have the effect of extending the 10 year market exclusivity for the first orphan product.

    (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1)

    Top