CELEX: C2005/132/50
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-28 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2005 in Case T-142/03 Fost Plus VZW v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Action brought by a legal person — Act of individual concern to it — Decision 2003/82/EC — Targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste — Directive 94/62/EC — Inadmissibility)

28.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 132/28
            
         
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   
   of 16 February 2005
   in Case T-142/03 Fost Plus VZW v Commission of the European Communities (1)
   
   (Action for annulment - Action brought by a legal person - Act of individual concern to it - Decision 2003/82/EC - Targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste - Directive 94/62/EC - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 132/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-142/03: Fost Plus VZW, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by P. Wytinck and H. Viaene, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and M. Konstantidinis, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/82/EC of 29 January 2003 confirming measures notified by Belgium pursuant to Article 6(6) of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 31, p. 32) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed, in deliberation, of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   
               1.
            
            
               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21. 6.2003.