- 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
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 December 2006.#Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union.#Appeal - Council decision determining the Community's position - Decision of the EEA Joint Committee permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent specific concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community.#Case C-368/05 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2006:771
62005CO0368
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
(Case C‑368/05 P)
Appeal – Council decision determining the Community’s position – Decision of the EEA Joint Committee permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent specific concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community
1. Procedure – Obligation of the Court of First Instance to open the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility – None (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114(1) to (3)) (see para. 46)
Re:
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 July 2005 in Case T-376/04 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission, which declared inadmissible an action for, first, annulment of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 26 April 2004 amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2004 L 277, p. 30) permitting Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community, and also a declaration that the joint statement relating to the EEA Agreement regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances, adopted at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 26 March 1999 (OJ 1999 C 185, p. 6), is unlawful and, second, an action for damages to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.
Operative part
1.The appeal is dismissed;
2.Polyelectrolyte Producers Group is ordered to pay the costs.