EN
17.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/59
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. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission made an error in basing the contested decision on the wrong scientific facts available at the time of its decision. 4.
Fourth plea in law, invoking a plea of illegality against Biogen’s marketing authorisation granted by the Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)601(final) (2) and requesting the annulment of the contested decision as a consequence. 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 — WO v Commission (Case T-259/23) (2023/C 252/71) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: WO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: — annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; — annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; — annul the measure of the appointing authority of 14 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 14 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and — order the Commission to pay the costs.