# C_2016232EN.01002602.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/26

---

Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case T-199/16)

(2016/C 232/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission.

1

| 2. | Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time.

Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG

ommission

| 3. | Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

1

---