1. 

Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—Inadmissibility—Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 18)

2. 

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution—Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 120(c))

(see paras 23, 24, 29-31)

3. 

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Pleas in law not set out in the application—Reference to the whole of the annexes—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 120(c))

(see paras 33, 34)

4. 

Judicial proceedings—Decision taken by way of reasoned order—Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure—Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection—No such infringement

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 40-42)

5. 

Appeal—Grounds—Plea directed against a superfluous ground—Invalid plea in law—Rejection

(see para. 47)

1. 

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly unfounded and, in part, manifestly ineffective.

2. 

Mr Massimo Campailla is ordered to bear his own costs.