CELEX: 62011TB0540
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-540/11: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 — Manifest inadmissibility)

16.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 336/23
            
         Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission
   (Case T-540/11) (1)
   
   (Action for damages - Levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 336/47
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV (Sint Anthonis, Netherlands); Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak (Oosterwolde, Netherlands); Mulders Agro vof (Heerle, Netherlands); Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof (Grashoek, Netherlands); Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV (Heusden, Netherlands); and Mathijs Moonen (Nederweert, Netherlands) (represented by P. Mazel and A. van Beelen, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: European Commission (represented by Z. Malůšková and B. Burggraaf, acting as Agents)
   
      Re:
   
   Claim for damages for the loss allegedly caused to the applicants by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (JO 2006 L 274, p. 6).
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV and Mr Mathijs Moonen are ordered to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.