Order — ECLI:EU:C:2015:370
Date: 2015-06-04
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Hungary

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító v Commission and Ombudsman (Case C‑576/14 P) 1(1) Appeal — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction of the General Court - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible 1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 15) 2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 16, 23) 3. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary — Obscure ground — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 19, 20) 4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see para. 24) Operative part 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft is ordered to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.