- 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-559/14: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council (‘Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TB0559
62014TB0559
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
13.7.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 228/13
(Case T-559/14)(<span class="super">1</span>)
((‘Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 - Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility’))
(2015/C 228/16)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ackermann Saatzucht (Irlbach, Germany) and the other applicants listed in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)
Defendants: European Parliament (represented by L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and R. Van de Westelaken, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and M. Simm, acting as Agents)
Re:
Action for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.There is no need to rule on the application of the European Seed Association (ESA) for leave to intervene.
3.Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.