EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-560/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/852 — Protection of human health and the environment — Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TB0560

62017TB0560

November 6, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
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

4.2.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/62

(Case T-560/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)

((Action for annulment - Environment - Regulation (EU) 2017/852 - Protection of human health and the environment - Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, L. Darie and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of letter (d) in Annex III, Part I to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017 L 137, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

1.The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden.

3.Fortischem a.s. is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

4.Fortischem, the Council, the Parliament, the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

(<span class="note"> <a id="ntr1-C_2019044EN.01006202-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2019044EN.01006202-E0001">*1</a> </span> ) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia