EN
17.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/57
5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights and in particular, the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, the right to be heard, and the right to a legal basis pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 6.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the applicant’s legal certainty. 7.
Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations. 8.
Eight plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the applicant’s right to property, laid down in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 9.
Ninth plea in law, alleging the contested decision amounts to a misuse of power by the European Commission.
(1) (2)
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).
Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use.
Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals v Commission (Case T-257/23) (2023/C 252/69) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Neuraxpharm Pharmaceuticals SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and C. Dumont, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — declare its request for annulment admissible and well-founded; — annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2023)3067(final) of 2 May 2023 (published on 4 May 2023) amending the marketing authorisation granted by Decision C(2014)601(final) for ‘Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use (‘the contested decision’), as well as any later decision, to the extent that they perpetuate and/or replace that decision including any follow-up regulatory actions, in so far as they relate to the applicant; — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging failure by the European Commission to observe the time limit for obtaining an extension of market protection as required by Article 14(11) Regulation EC No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplies the law, as the Commission erred with respect to the scope of the judgment of 16 March 2023, Commission and Others v Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma (C-438/21 P to C-440/21 P, EU:C:2023:213) and in particular by considering the ad hoc assessment report of 11 November 2021 irrelevant.