Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0199

    Case T-199/16: Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

    IO C 232, 27.6.2016, p. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.6.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 232/26

    Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

    (Case T-199/16)

    (2016/C 232/35)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)).

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

    1.

    The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission.

    2.

    Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time.

    3.

    Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition.

    (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

    Top