Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Case C-178/18 P / Judgment

MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet International BV v European Medicines Agency.
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Fourth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
22/01/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2020:24
  • CJEU Case C-178/18 P / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Appeal — Access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — First indent of Article 4(2) — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Article 4(3) — Protection of the decision-making process — Documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency in the context of a marketing authorisation application for a veterinary medicinal product — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — General presumption of confidentiality — No obligation for an EU institution, body, office or agency to apply a general presumption of confidentiality.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:

    1. Dismisses the appeal;
    2. Orders MSD Animal Health Innovation GmbH and Intervet International BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    49) That core EU objective is also reflected in Article 15(1) TFEU, which provides that the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union are to conduct their work as openly as possible, that principle of openness also being expressed in Article 10(3) TEU and in Article 298(1) TFEU, and in the enshrining of the right of access to documents in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (judgment of 4 September 2018, ClientEarth v Commission, C‑57/16 P, EU:C:2018:660, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).