C_2006048EN.01003801.xml

25.2.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/38

Action brought on 7 December 2005 — Artegodan v Commission

(Case T-429/05)

(2006/C 48/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Artegodan GmbH (Lüchow, Germany) (represented by: U. Doepner, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 430 821,36 plus a lump-sum interest payment of 8 % for the period from the date of the judgment to that of full payment of the sum due;

—

Declare that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicant for all future damage which it will incur as a result of marketing expenses which are necessary to re-establish the market position which the pharmaceutical product Tenuate retard enjoyed before the defendant withdrew the authorisation for that product;

—	Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation from the Commission under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC and a declaration that the defendant is under an obligation to compensate the applicant for all future damage which it will incur as a result of marketing expenses.

In relation to the background to the dispute, it should be pointed out that the applicant is the proprietor of the legal rights of the authorisation for the pharmaceutical preparation Tenuate retard, which contains amfepramone. On 9 March 2000, the defendant adopted, on the basis of Article 15a of Directive 75/319/EEC, (1) Decision C(2000) 453 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘amfepramone’. By decision of 11 April 2000, the competent German authorities implemented that latter Commission decision. By judgment of 26 November 2002 in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00 the Court of First Instance declared Commission Decision C(2000) 453 invalid. The appeal lodged by the Commission against that judgment was dismissed by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-39/03 P.

In the reasons given in its action the applicant submits that, by reason of Decision C(2000) 453, the Commission acted unlawfully and thereby infringed various provisions serving to protect the applicant. The applicant claims that its basic right to carry on the business which it established (company and property rights) was infringed. In addition, it alleges infringement of Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC. (2) Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the basic principles of sound administration.

The applicant submits that it suffered harm as a result of the decision in question and the implementation thereof. According to the applicant, the defendant should pay to it compensation in regards of the infringements identified above.

(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products.

(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products.