- 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 Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2012. # Smanor SA v European Commission and European Ombudsman. # Appeal - Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case C-474/11 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2012:121
62011CO0474
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
Appeal — Article 119 of the rules of the procedure — Marketing of frozen yoghurt prohibited — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations –Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility
Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 9‑12)
Re:
Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2011 in Case T‑185/11 Smanor v Commission and Ombudsman, by which that court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking, first, a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the French Republic and, secondly, compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant.
Operative part
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.Smanor SA shall bear its own costs.