Fot those of you who love an "end of procedure notice" discussion, then this one is for you. The decision in C-567-16 is now out, and the link is here.
The spoiler is that an end of procedure notice is not equivalent to a marketing authorisation - see the answers from the CJEU below.
1. Article 3(b)
of 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an end of procedure
notice issued by the reference Member State in accordance with
Article 28(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal
products for human use, as amended, as regards pharmacovigilance, by Directive
2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 December 2010,
before the expiry of the basic patent, as defined in Article 1(c) of
Regulation No 469/2009, may not be treated as equivalent to a marketing
authorisation within the meaning of Article 3(b) of that regulation, with
the result that a supplementary protection certificate may not be obtained on
the basis of such a notice.
2. Article 10(3)
of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact
that no marketing authorisation has been granted by the Member State concerned
at the time the supplementary protection certificate application is lodged in
that Member State does not constitute an irregularity that can be cured under
that provision
