European Union – Medicinal products. The second paragraph of art 11 of Directive (EC) 2001/83 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a marketing authorisation (MA), communication to the competent national authority by the applicant or holder of a MA for a generic medicinal product of the package leaflet or a summary of the product characteristics of that medicinal product which did not include any reference to indications or dosage forms which were still covered by patent law at the time that medicinal product had been placed on the market constituted a request to limit the scope of the MA of the generic medicinal product in question. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the decentralised MA procedure for a generic medicinal product provided for in art 28 of that directive.
Child – Care. A local authority was not absolutely required, or under a duty (by statute or otherwise), to inform or consult members of a child's extended family about the existence of that child or the plans for his adoption, in circumstances where they had not been proposed by the child's parents as potential alternative carers and where the parents (or either of them) specifically did not wish the wider family to be involved. In such circumstances, the court, and/or the authority or adoption agency, could exercise its broad judgment on the facts of each individual case, taking into account all of the circumstances, but attaching primacy to the welfare of the subject child. The Family Court so ruled concerning the authority's application for guidance on whether it should take steps to track down the paternal family members of a five-month-old baby (who was the subject of an interim care order and whose parents had a history of substance misuse and alcohol abuse), to notify them of his existence, with a view to assessing them, notwithstanding the father's objection. The court held that, on the facts, it was in the child's best interests for the wider paternal family to be notified of his existence.
Immigration – Asylum. The appellants' submissions were inadequate to demonstrate that the approach of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to their appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of their asylum claims had been wrong. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeals.
Immigration – Asylum. The facts of the case had not demonstrated particularly strong features of a private life which outweighed the normative guidance in ss 117A and 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and there had been very little in the appellant's personal circumstances to suggest that he would face 'very significant obstacles' to his integration in Kabul. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, further held that he had not shown that he would 'solely on account of his presence' face a real risk of being subject to the serious threat of violence.
Proceeds of crime – Confiscation order. The defendant's lack of legal interest in a bank account did not lead to the conclusion that he had not obtained the funds he controlled. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, further held that there was no principled basis for measuring the defendant's benefit from criminal conduct by reference to the amount of tax evaded, when it had not been he but others who had evaded it.