do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-359/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — European Medicines Agency v Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Orphan medicinal products — Article 5 — Application for designation of a medicinal product as an ‘orphan medicinal product’ — Validation — Existence of a prior marketing authorisation (MA) for the same medicinal product)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, orphan disease, orphan drug








C_2019319EN.01001701.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — European Medicines Agency v Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd, European Commission
(Case C-359/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Orphan medicinal products - Article 5 - Application for designation of a medicinal product as an ‘orphan medicinal product’ - Validation - Existence of a prior marketing authorisation (MA) for the same medicinal product)
(2019/C 319/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: initially by S. Marino, S. Drosos, T. Jabłoński and A. Spina, Agents, and subsequently by S. Marino, S. Drosos and T. Jabłoński, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd (represented by: G. Castle, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC and M. Birdling, Barrister and by S. Cowlishaw, Solicitor), European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen and A. Sipos, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Shire Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018
Case C-436/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Appeal — Dumping — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain products originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 2(7)(a) — Normal value — Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country — Selection of the appropriate third country — Market economy third country which is subject to the same investigation — Adjustments)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), market economy, originating product, plate, steel, third country








C_2019319EN.01001801.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/18






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd v European Commission, Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL
(Case C-436/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain products originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(a) - Normal value - Determination on the basis of the price in a market economy third country - Selection of the appropriate third country - Market economy third country which is subject to the same investigation - Adjustments)
(2019/C 319/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents), Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, and G. Forwood and C. Van Haute, avocates)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9294 — BMS/Celgene) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 347/09
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2019347EN.01000901.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9294 — BMS/Celgene)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 347/09)
On 29 July 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9294. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9428 — Triton/Royal Reesink Group) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural machinery, construction equipment, economic concentration, investment company, lease, machinery, maintenance, merger control








C_2019259EN.01000101.xml










2.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 259/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9428 — Triton/Royal Reesink Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 259/01)
On 29 July 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9428. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-40/16: Action brought on 29 July 2019 — MU v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disability insurance, disabled person, discretionary power, medical report, physician, remuneration of work, traineeship, wage determination, worker with disabilities








C_2019312EN.01001101.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/11






Action brought on 29 July 2019 — MU v Parliament
(Case T-40/16)
(2019/C 312/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: MU (represented by: A. Bruno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find and declare that the measure adopted by the European Parliament on 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities, provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament, is unlawful;










—


accordingly, declare that MU has a personal right to be awarded the additional payment provided for in Article 29(9) of the rules governing traineeships at the European Parliament, since he has a disability of 70 %;










—


order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the additional remuneration provided for in the applicable rules, together with interest and monetary indexation from the date of the administrative request to the date of actual payment;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims:






1.


The award of the additional payment to persons with disabilities, provided for in Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament, is not a matter of discretion for the Parliament.










2.


The percentage disability is confirmed or established by the European Parliament’s medical adviser according to whether it is based on a national certificate or on a detailed opinion of the trainee’s doctor, making reference to the ‘European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments’.










3.


The European Parliament’s discretion, if it has any in the present case, has been exceeded without just cause. In this respect, it should be noted that the rules in question distinguish between, on the one hand, cases in which the disability is based on a certificate from the national authority, as here, in which case the disability is confirmed by the European Parliament’s doctor, and, on the other hand, cases in which the disability is based on a report from the trainee’s doctor. In the latter case, and only in that case, the percentage disability is established by the European Parliament’s doctor.
Case C-654/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission, Freistaat Sachsen (Appeal — State aid — Regional investment aid — Aid for a large investment project — Aid partly incompatible with the internal market — Article 107(3) TFEU — Whether the aid is necessary — Article 108(3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — Aid exceeding the individual notification threshold — Notification — Scope of the block exemption — Cross-appeal — Whether an intervention before the General Court of the European Union may proceed — Admissibility)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, investment aid, investment project, motor vehicle industry, regional aid








C_2019319EN.01001101.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v European Commission, Freistaat Sachsen
(Case C-654/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Regional investment aid - Aid for a large investment project - Aid partly incompatible with the internal market - Article 107(3) TFEU - Whether the aid is necessary - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Aid exceeding the individual notification threshold - Notification - Scope of the block exemption - Cross-appeal - Whether an intervention before the General Court of the European Union may proceed - Admissibility)
(2019/C 319/10)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (represented by: M. Rosenthal, G. Drauz and M. Schütte, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, A. Bouchagiar and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents), Freistaat Sachsen (represented by: T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;










2.


Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal;










3.


Orders Freistaat Sachsen to bear its own costs in respect of the main appeal;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and of Freistaat Sachsen in respect of the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Case C-659/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Employment aid — Exemption from social security contributions in connection with training and work experience contracts — Decision 2000/128/EC — Aid granted by Italy to promote employment — Aid incompatible in part with the internal market — Applicability of Decision 2000/128/EC to an undertaking exclusively providing local public transport services which were directly awarded to it by a municipality — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘distortion of competition’ — Concept of ‘effect on trade’ between Member States)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, employment aid, job creation, public transport, restriction on competition, social-security contribution, vocational training, work contract








C_2019319EN.01001201.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/12






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA
(Case C-659/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Employment aid - Exemption from social security contributions in connection with training and work experience contracts - Decision 2000/128/EC - Aid granted by Italy to promote employment - Aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Applicability of Decision 2000/128/EC to an undertaking exclusively providing local public transport services which were directly awarded to it by a municipality - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘distortion of competition’ - Concept of ‘effect on trade’ between Member States)
(2019/C 319/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Respondent: Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications which are to be made by the referring court, Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment must be interpreted as applying to an undertaking, such as that in the main proceedings, which, on the basis of a direct and exclusive award by a municipality, provided local public transport services and benefited from reductions in social security contributions under national legislation which was declared by that decision to be incompatible, in part, with the prohibition laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.


(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case C-576/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-377/18: Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to EU information, market approval, medicinal product








C_2019432EN.01001701.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/17






Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-377/18: Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA
(Case C-576/19 P)
(2019/C 432/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Intercept Pharma Ltd, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, E. Amos, Solicitors, F. Campbell, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the decision of the General Court delivered on 28 June 2019;










—


annul the decision communicated by the respondent to the appellants on 15 May 2018 to release the Periodic Benefit Risk Evaluation Report, and










—


order the respondent to pay the appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter, both at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, that the General Court erred in concluding that the ‘protection of court proceedings’ indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) is only relevant where documents were drawn up in the context of specific court proceedings or where they contain legal positions that are the subject of such proceedings. This put an impermissible restriction and limitation onto the wording of Article 4(2) that is not contained in the Regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, that the General Court erred in concluding that the ‘commercial interests’ indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 can only apply where specific elements of the document are identified as undermining the commercial interests of the relevant party, and cannot apply simply on the basis that the disclosure of a document as a whole would harm the commercial interests of its creator. This view prevented the General Court from recognising the error in law and assessment made by the respondent by refusing to consider the context of the request for disclosure in this case.






(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).
Case C-575/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by GMP-Orphan (GMPO) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-733/17, GMPO v Commission
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, orphan drug








C_2020287EN.01002602.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/26






Appeal brought on 29 July 2019 by GMP-Orphan (GMPO) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2019 in Case T-733/17, GMPO v Commission
(Case C-575/19 P)
(2020/C 287/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: GMP-Orphan (GMPO) (represented by: J. Mulryne, L. Tsang, Solicitors, C. Schoonderbeek, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) decided that the appeal should be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible and ordered GMP-Orphan SA to bear its own costs.