This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Case C-201/94 R. v The Medicines Control Agency, ex parte Smith & Nephew Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Primecrown Ltd v The Medicine Control Agency [1996] ECR I – 5819

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 04:16

Judgement for the case Case C-201/94 R. v The Medicines Control Agency, ex parte Smith & Nephew Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Primecrown Ltd v The Medicine Control Agency

Table Of Contents

  • The holder of an original marketing authorisation issued under the procedure referred to in Directive 65/65 may rely on the provisions of that directive in proceedings before a national court in order to challenge the validity of an authorisation issued by the competent national authority on the basis of Directive 65/65 to one of its competitors for a proprietary medicinal product bearing the same name.

  • The same applies where the authorisation, although issued under another procedure laid down at national level, should have been issued on the basis of the directive.

    • I.e. administrative decisions can be challenged by virtue of the fact that, had they used the proper procedure under an unimplemented directive, they would have been taken differently. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Case C-201/94 R. v The Medicines Control Agency, ex parte Smith & Nephew Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Primecrown Ltd v The Medicine Control Agency

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1033 purchased

European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...