do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-121/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) — Originator medicines and generic medicines — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(a) — Conditions for obtaining — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria for assessment)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent








C_2018328EN.01001302.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/13






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.
(Case C-121/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - Originator medicines and generic medicines - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(a) - Conditions for obtaining - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria for assessment))
(2018/C 328/15)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’

Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of several active ingredients with a combined effect is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision where, even if the combination of active ingredients of which that product is composed is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, those claims relate necessarily and specifically to that combination. For that purpose, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and on the basis of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent:






—


the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and










—


each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent.






(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Case C-404/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) — Manifestly unfounded application for international protection — Concept of safe country of origin — No national rules concerning that concept — Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, foreign national, right of asylum, third country








C_2018328EN.01002001.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/20






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket
(Case C-404/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) - Manifestly unfounded application for international protection - Concept of safe country of origin - No national rules concerning that concept - Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin))
(2018/C 328/24)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 31(8)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 32(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not allowing an application for international protection to be regarded as manifestly unfounded in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, first, it is apparent from the information on the applicant’s country of origin that acceptable protection can be ensured for him in that country and, secondly, the applicant has provided insufficient information to justify the grant of international protection, where the Member State in which the application was lodged has not adopted rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin.


(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Case C-487/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, radioactive waste, waste management








C_2018328EN.01002902.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/29






Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-487/18)
(2018/C 328/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste; (1)











—


order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Up to the present, the defendant has merely notified the Commission of a draft national programme. In its replies to the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion it explained that the national programme had still to be adopted by the Federal Government, something which had not yet occurred. Only after that adoption would notification of the national programme be possible. However, the defendant has not yet followed up on those announcements. The defendant has thus still not notified a national programme and has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the directive.


(1)  OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48.
Case C-96/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ — Definition of ‘working conditions’ — Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration — Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration — Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, equal treatment, full-time employment, indemnification, severance pay, temporary employment, unfair dismissal, working conditions








C_2018328EN.01001101.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/11






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
(Case C-96/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ - Definition of ‘working conditions’ - Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration - Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration - Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation))
(2018/C 328/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.


(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.