CELEX: C2005/296/52
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-287/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 September 2005  — Lorte and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Regulations (EC) No 864/2004 and No 865/2004 — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

26.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/24
            
         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 — Lorte and Others v Council
   (Case T-287/04) (1)
   
   (Action for annulment - Regulations (EC) No 864/2004 and No 865/2004 - Support scheme in the olive oil sector - Natural and legal persons - Not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 296/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish.
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Lorte, SL (Seville, Spain), Oleo Unión, Federación empresarial de organizaciones de productores de aceite de oliva (Seville, Spain), Unión de organizaciones de productores de aceite de oliva (Unaproliva) (Jaén, Spain), (represented by: R. Illescas Ortiz, lawyer)
   
      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48), and of Council Regulation (EC) No 865/2004 of 29 April 2004 on the common organisation of the market in olive oil and table olives and amending Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 97).
   Operative part of the Order
   
               1.
            
            
               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The applicants must bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission's application for leave to intervene.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.