CELEX: 62016TB0101
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-101/16: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission (Action for failure to act — State aid — Supply of timber — Preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber — Commission’s failure to adopt a position within a reasonable period of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

6.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/20
            
         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission
   (Case T-101/16) (1)
   
   ((Action for failure to act - State aid - Supply of timber - Preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber - Commission’s failure to adopt a position within a reasonable period of time - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 178/26)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH (Saalburg-Ebersdorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Reich, C. Hipp and T. Ilgner, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a decision, within a reasonable period of time, in the context of the preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted to the applicant by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber.
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.