Case T-96/21: Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission
Date: 2021-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: coronavirus disease, drug surveillance, epidemic, market approval, vaccination, vaccine








C_2021148EN.01002101.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/21






Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission
(Case T-96/21)
(2021/C 148/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 35 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision, as amended and supplemented.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against European Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 (final) of 21 December 2020 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified)’, a medicinal product for human use, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic on account of the high mortality rate supposedly connected with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. Furthermore, the WHO and the EU have not duly recognised the crisis situation as a public health threat.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 due to:






—


the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance, as defined in Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2)











—


the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since the applicant is not likely to be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data;










—


the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, since there are no unmet medical needs that will be fulfilled by the authorised medicinal product;










—


the failure to meet the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)











4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2)  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).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).