Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE EIGHTH CHAMBER (EXTENDED COMPOSITION) OF THE GENERAL COURT

10 February 2021 (*)

(Removal from the register)

In Case T‑549/18,

Hexal AG, established in Holzkirchen (Germany), represented by M. Martens, lawyer, S. Faircliffe, Solicitor, and N. Carbonnelle, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA), represented by S. Drosos, R. Pita and T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, established in Paris (France), represented by P. Bogaert, B. Van Vooren and C. Ryckman, lawyers,

and

European Commission, represented by L. Haasbeek and  A. Sipos, acting as Agents,

interveners,

APPLICATION, first, for a declaration that the plea of illegality raised against Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 5611 final of 26 August 2013 granting marketing authorisation for ‘AUBAGIO — Teriflunomide’, a medicinal product for human use, is admissible and well-founded, in so far as that decision confirms the conclusion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) that teriflunomide has new active substance status and, second, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the EMA of 5 July 2008, not to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for a generic version of the medicinal product Aubagio.

1        The applicant, Hexal AG, brought this action by application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 September 2018.

2        By documents lodged at the Registry of the Court on 21 December 2018 and 21 January 2019, respectively, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and the European Commission sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the defendant. By orders of 18 March 2019, the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court, having heard the main parties, granted those applications for leave to intervene. On 20 and 23 May 2019, respectively, the Commission and Sanofi-Aventis Groupe lodged their statements in intervention, on which the applicant and the defendant lodged their observations within the prescribed periods.

3        On 16 August 2019, the written part of the procedure was closed.

4        On a proposal from the Eighth Chamber, the Court decided, on 12 February 2020, pursuant to Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, to refer the case to the Eighth Chamber sitting in extended composition of five judges.

5        The parties presented oral arguments and replied to the questions put by the Court at the hearing on 10 July 2020. After the hearing, the Court closed the oral part of the procedure and began its deliberations.

6        On 26 November 2020, the parties were informed by the Registry of the Court that judgment would be delivered in open court on 22 January 2021. On 4 December 2020, they were informed that judgment would instead be delivered in open court on 27 January 2021.

7        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 4 January 2021, the applicant informed the Court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that it wished to discontinue proceedings and requested to decide on the costs in accordance with Article 136 and 138 of the Rules of Procedure.

8        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 21 January 2021, the defendant informed the Court that it took note of the discontinuance and requested that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs.

9        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 14 January 2021, the Commission informed the Court that it had no objections on the discontinuance. It sought no order as to costs.

10      The Sanofi-Aventis Groupe did not lodge observations on the discontinuance within the time-limit.

11      Article 136(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance.

12      Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.

13      Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the General Court may order an intervener other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 to bear his own costs.

14      The case shall therefore be removed from the register and the applicant ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by EMA.

15      The interveners are ordered to bear their own cost.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE EIGHTH CHAMBER (EXTENDED COMPOSITION) OF THE GENERAL COURT

hereby orders:

1.      Case T-549/18 is removed from the register of the General Court.

2.      The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Medicines Agency.

3.      Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 10 February 2021.

* Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.