This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/283/48
Case T-35/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Honig-Verband v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 — Protected geographical indication — Miel de Provence — Measure of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Case T-35/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Honig-Verband v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 — Protected geographical indication — Miel de Provence — Measure of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Case T-35/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Honig-Verband v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 — Protected geographical indication — Miel de Provence — Measure of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/27 |
Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2007 — Honig-Verband v Commission
(Case T-35/06) (1)
(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 - Protected geographical indication - ‘Miel de Provence’ - Measure of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2007/C 283/48)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Honig-Verband eV (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and B. Doherty, Agents)
Re:
Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI) (OJ 2005 L 297, p. 3)
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
|
2. |
The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |