- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-434/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Doux v Commission (Agriculture — Export refund — Poultry meat — Implementing Regulation fixing the refund at EUR 0 — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 164(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Legitimate expectations)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TA0434
62013TA0434
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
29.2.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 78/16
(Case T-434/13)(1)
((Agriculture - Export refund - Poultry meat - Implementing Regulation fixing the refund at EUR 0 - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 164(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Legitimate expectations))
(2016/C 078/24)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Doux SA (Châteaulin, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)
Re:
Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1)Dismisses the action;
2)Orders Doux SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;
3)Orders Tilly-Sabco to bear its own costs.
(1)
OJ C 291, 5.10.2013.
* * *