- 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 17 March 2009. # Ammayappan Ayyanarsamy v Commission of the European Communities and Federal Republic of Germany. # Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded - Alleged infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights by the national authorities - Action for annulment of the Commission’s letter stating that it had no power to intervene before the national courts - Concept of ‘challengeable act’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC. # Case C-251/08 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2009:161
62008CO0251
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 C‑251/08 P)
Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded – Alleged infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights by the national authorities – Action for annulment of the Commission’s letter stating that it had no power to intervene before the national courts – Concept of ‘challengeable act’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC
Re:
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 1 April 2008 in Case T-412/07 Ayyanarsamy v Commission and Germany, by which that Court dismissed, partly on the ground of manifest inadmissibility and partly on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction, the action seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 18 September 2007 informing the appellant that it could not intervene in his favour before the German courts and, secondly, payment of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant by reason of the conduct of the German authorities – Infringement of the rights of individuals arising from Articles 230 EC and 232 EC – Concept of challengeable act for the purposes of Article 230 EC.
Operative part
1.The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
2.Mr Ayyanarsamy is ordered to bear his own costs.