Order — ECLI:EU:C:2017:110
Date: 2017-02-07
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Appeal brought on 9 August 2016 by Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 8 June 2016 in Case T–178/15, Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission (Case C–446/16 P) Language of the case: German Parties Appellants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: set aside the order of the General Court of 8 June 2016 and find against the respondent; declare admissible the appellants’ notice of opposition of 23 December 2014 in procedure AT-TSG-0007-01035. Grounds of appeal and main arguments In the order under appeal, the General Court took the view that the appellants’ arguments related only to the late transmission of the notice of opposition by the national authority. The appellants, however, state that they also claimed that they were placed at a disadvantage by the stipulation in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 1 and that that provision is unlawful because it does not contain any rule on the period within which the national authority had to transmit the appellants’ notice of opposition to the respondent. In that regard, the appellants referred to a flaw in that provision resulting in a situation in which, in the worst-case scenario, they would be unable to lodge a notice of opposition at all. The General Court did not rule on that issue. In the order presently under appeal, the General Court held only that the appellants had not adequately invoked the unlawfulness of that provision. However, the appellants had already referred in their application to the issue of the incorrect determination of the period in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012. This means that the appellants did object to the rule laid down by the aforementioned provision and proceeded on the basis that their rights as opposing parties had not been adequately respected. ____________ 1 Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).