This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0682
Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 8–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 65/8 |
Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
(Case C-682/11 P)
2012/C 65/16
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance; |
|
— |
order the defendants to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision by which the action was dismissed as inadmissible for lack of direct concern.
The appellant maintains that the regulation at issue (1) (‘the Regulation’) is of direct concern to the appellant. This follows from the fact that even at the time of the Regulation’s adoption and before its entry into force, it was clear that the Member States concerned would, in practice, exercise the discretion conferred on them in the Regulation in only one way. The possibility that the Member States concerned or their respective authorities would decide otherwise is thus purely theoretical.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).