Case C-34/10, Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V., Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 October 2011, nyr

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1197-1209

  Spranger, Tade Matthias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865553654     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, O.J. L 213/13. 1998,
2. Case C-377/98, Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, [2001] ECR I-7079; cf. Spranger, case note in 39 CML Rev. (2002), 1147 et seq.
3. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS).
4. Jokic, "Why potentiality cannot matter", 24 Journal of Social Philosophy (1993), 177 et seq.
5. Hershenov, "The problem of potentiality", 13 Public Affairs Quarterly (1999), 255 et seq.
6. Harman, "The potentiality problem", 114 Philosophical Studies (2003), 173 et seq.
7. Chan, "The golden rule and the potentiality principle: future persons and contingent interests", 21 Journal of Applied Ethics (2004), 33 et seq.
8. Denker, "Potentiality of embryonic stem cells: An ethical problem even with alternative stem cell sources", 32 Journal of Medical Ethics (2006), 665 et seq.
9. Hanson, "More on respect for embryos and potentiality: Does respect for embryos entail respect for in vitro embryos?", 27 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics (2006), 215 et seq.
10. ECtHR, Appl. No. 57813/00, S.H. a.o. v. AUSTRIA, 3 Nov. 2011, paras. 92 et seq.
11. See also the Press Release by the Alliance of Scientific Organizations in Germany of 7 Dec. 2011: "Do interpretations of the ECJ judgment on embryos affect stem cell research?", available at (last visited on 15. 2012 www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/2011/ stellungnahme_allianz_eugh_urteil_stammzellen_111207_en.pdf