EN 22 1 2020 Official Journal of the European Union C 22/11 20 There are different judicial remedies which natural and legal persons may use against decisions of EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies (see Picture 3) One type of remedy is an annulment action against a legally binding decision which has either been addressed to the person or is of direct and individual concern To annul a decision taken by the EU or one of its bodies, applicants must present their applications within two months of publication of the relevant decision (13) Accordingly, most cases were filed within two months of the publication of the resolution decision and asked only for the resolution decision to be annulled It needs to be noted that some applicants claim that they are entitled to compensation if the SRBŐs decision is annulled (14) However, based on EU case law, actions for annulment and actions for damages pursue different purposes Therefore, these applications do not appear to lead to contingent liabilities other than legal costs Picture 3 Available judicial remedies against decisions of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies Source: ECA based on the TFEU and case law 21 Another type of remedy is an action for damages, claiming a non-contractual liability of the Union Claims for damages against the EU based on alleged non-contractual liabilities (15) can only be brought within five years For a successful action for damages, applicants must demonstrate a sufficiently serious breach by the institution of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, actual damage suffered by the applicant, and a direct causal link between the unlawful act and the damage By the end of May 2019, out of 102 cases related to decisions on whether to adopt a resolution scheme, 23 involved applicants seeking compensation for alleged damages in addition to their request for annulment of the resolution decision Of the 102 cases, 13 involved applicants who had brought claims only for damages allegedly suffered 22 Within their actions for annulment and/or damages, some applicants have also brought pleas of illegality (16) (see Picture 4) They claim that the legal framework underlying the resolution of BPE, such as provisions of the SRM Regulation, is not compliant with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) If the EU courts agree, the disputed provision of the legal framework may hence be considered inapplicable Some applicants have also brought actions against the ECBŐs FOLTF decision However, contingent liabilities of the ECB are not within the scope of this audit (see paragraph 4) Furthermore, annulment actions were brought against the CommissionŐs endorsing decision (see Table 3 and paragraph 54) and the implementing decision by the National Resolution Authority (NRA) of Spain, Fondo de Reestructuracin Ordenada Bancaria (FROB) (13) Article 263 of TFEU defines the timeframe as within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter (14) See Article 85(4) Directive 2014/59/EU (15) Article 268 TFEU, Article 87(5) of SRM Regulation and Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (16) Article 277 TFEU 
2. Det finns olika rttsmedel som fysiska och juridiska personer kan anvnda mot beslut frn EU:s institutioner, organ och byrer (se bild 3). 21.