This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TB0264
Case T-264/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco (Action for failure to act — Invitation to act — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Loss — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Case T-264/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco (Action for failure to act — Invitation to act — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Loss — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Case T-264/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco (Action for failure to act — Invitation to act — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Loss — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 17–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.9.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 282/17 |
Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco
(Case T-264/09) (1)
(Action for failure to act - Invitation to act - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Loss - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
2011/C 282/30
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Technoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)
Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and L. Prete, Agents); and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco
Re:
APPLICATION firstly, for a declaration that the European Commission and the EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco have failed to act and secondly, for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of, inter alia, that failure to act.
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law. |
|
2. |
Technoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs. |