Language of document :

Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 - Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-12/12) 

(Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol - Letter informing the applicant of the Commission's intention to refuse authorisation - Application for a declaration of failure to act - Definition of position by the Commission - Inadmissibility - Application for annulment - Adoption of a new decision - No need to adjudicate)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White and L. Banciella, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant : Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent), and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and H. Walker, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a final decision in relation to the applicant's application for a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Orphacol, and, in the alternative, for annulment of the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission's letter of 5 December 2011, not to grant that authorisation to the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Dismisses the application for a declaration of failure to act as inadmissible;

Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment submitted in the alternative;

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires CTRS;

Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own respective costs.

____________

1 - OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.