EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TO0367
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011.#Tecnoprocess Srl v European Commission.#Action for failure to act - Request to act - Manifest inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-367/09.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011.
Tecnoprocess Srl v European Commission.
Action for failure to act - Request to act - Manifest inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T-367/09.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011.
Tecnoprocess Srl v European Commission.
Action for failure to act - Request to act - Manifest inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T-367/09.
European Court Reports 2011 II-00209*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2011:320
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 – Tecnoprocess v Commission
(Case T-367/09)
Action for failure to act – Request to act – Manifest inadmissibility – Action for damages – Causal link – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law
1. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see para. 48)
2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Compulsory – Action brought before the expiry of the time-limit for the institution’s reply – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 52-53)
3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 74-75)
4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 76-78, 83)
Re:
ACTION, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the European Union delegation to Nigeria have failed to act and, secondly, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure to act. |
Operative part
1. |
The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
2. |
Tecnoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs. |