- 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-212/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Bowland Dairy Products v Commission (Action for damages — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Rapid alert system — Supplementary notification — Competence of the national authorities — Commission’s opinion not binding — Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62006TA0212
62006TA0212
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
19.12.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 312/27
(Case T-212/06)
(Action for damages - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Rapid alert system - Supplementary notification - Competence of the national authorities - Commission’s opinion not binding - Modification of the subject-matter of the dispute - Inadmissibility)
2009/C 312/43
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Bowland Dairy Products Ltd (Barrowford, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Milligan, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC and A. Robertson, Barrister)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, J.-P. Keppenne and L. Parpala, Agents)
Re:
Application, first, for annulment of the alleged refusal by the Commission to circulate, under the rapid alert system provided for in Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1), a supplementary notification declaring that the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency was content for the curd cheese produced by the applicant to be marketed and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of that refusal.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
2.Orders Bowland Dairy Products Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.