EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TA0457
Case T-457/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
Case T-457/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
Case T-457/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)
IO C 313, 26.10.2013, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.10.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 313/24 |
Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission
(Case T-457/11) (1)
(Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
2013/C 313/46
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)
Re:
Application for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of the Commission of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 163, p. 10).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
|
2. |
Orders Valeo Vision to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission |