I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Action for annulment — Act not subject to review — Act which is confirmatory, in part, and informative, in part — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Failure to identify the alleged conduct or to define the alleged damage — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — No proof of damage — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law
3. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 79)
5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof — Claim for compensation without explanation as to the damage alleged and the link between that damage and the conduct of the Community institution — Conditions not fulfilled (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 102-104, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 123, 125)
6. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 146)
APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of a letter of the Commission of 27 May 2011, second, for an order for the Commission to pay damages and, third, for an order for the Commission to publish a communiqué.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.