CELEX: 62011TA0279
Language: en
Date: 2013-06-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-279/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (Agriculture — Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota — Action for annulment — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility — Action for damages)

3.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 225/70
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-279/11) (1)
   
   (Agriculture - Exceptional measures concerning the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market and opening a tariff quota - Action for annulment - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility - Action for damages)
   2013/C 225/155
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: T&L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Rossi and A. Demeneix, subsequently by P. Rossi, A. Demeneix and N. Donnelly, and lastly by P. Rossi and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)
   
      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents); and French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues and C. Candat, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011 (OJ 2011 L 60, p. 6), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy (OJ 2011 L 79, p. 8), Commission Implementing Regulation No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (OJ 2011 L 81, p. 8), and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (OJ 2011 L 104, p. 39), and claim for compensation for the damage suffered
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/2011, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy, Commission Implementing Regulation No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the plea of inadmissibility as regards the claim for compensation for the damage suffered;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.