CELEX: 62009TO0367
Language: en
Date: 2011-06-30 00:00:00
Title: 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 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.