- 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-346/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2009 — IMS v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Directive 98/37/EC — Machinery bearing the CE marking — Hazards to the safety of persons — National prohibition measure — Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified — Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62006TB0346
62006TB0346
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 90/26
(Case T-346/06)
(Action for annulment and for damages - Directive 98/37/EC - Machinery bearing the ‘CE’ marking - Hazards to the safety of persons - National prohibition measure - Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified - Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility)
2009/C 90/42
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) (Schio, Italy) (represented by: F. Colonna and T. Romolotti, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent)
Re:
First, application for annulment of the Commission’s opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses and, second, application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of that opinion
Operative part of the order
1.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.
2.The remainder of the action is dismissed as inadmissible.
3.The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the interim proceedings. As to the remainder, the Commission and Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) are ordered to bear half of the costs each.
4.The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.