15Bayer brought an action against that decision, which is the subject of the main proceedings. The referring court notes that, since the adoption of that decision, the Court has delivered several judgments relevant to the case in the main proceedings. According to that court, in Hogan Lovells International (C‑229/09, EU:C:2010:673), the Court held that a supplementary protection certificate may be issued on the basis of a provisional MA. That court adds that, in Medeva (C‑322/10, EU:C:2011:773) and Georgetown University and Others (C‑422/10, EU:C:2011:776), the Court interpreted Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) as meaning that an application for a supplementary protection certificate in respect of a single active ingredient cannot be rejected on the ground that that is not the only active ingredient of which the medicinal product at issue is composed.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.