- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2011. # Mariyus Noko Ngele v European Commission and Others. # Non-contractual liability - Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction - Action inadmissible in part - Absence of causal link - Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. # Case T-15/10.
ECLI:EU:T:2011:125
62010TO0015(02)
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
(Case T-15/10)
Non-contractual liability – Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction – Action inadmissible in part – Absence of causal link – Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law – Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court
3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 44-45)
Re:
ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of pursuing recovery of a debt owed to him and the non‑material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of criminal proceedings instigated against him in Belgium.
Operative part
1.The action is dismissed as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it is directed against AT, AU, AV and AW.
2.Mr Mariyus Noko Ngele’s head of claim seeking from the Court a declaration that the Centre pour le développement des entreprises (CDE) never replaced the Centre pour le développement industriel (CDI) and that the CDE does not exist in law or have legal personality in Belgium is dismissed on the basis that it is made before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.
3.Mr Noko Ngele’s claim that the Court should order that the judgment to be delivered is enforceable is rejected as inadmissible.
4.The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.
5.Mr Noko Ngele is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings and the interim proceedings.