EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011.#ClientEarth v Council of the European Union.#Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility.#Case T-452/10.

ECLI:EU:T:2011:420

62010TO0452

September 6, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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-452/10)

Action for annulment – Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Third party capacity in relation to the parties – Charity represented by one of its trustees – Inadmissibility – Trustee being neither an employee nor a director entrusted with the daily management of the association – No effect (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 15-20)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 26 July 2010 refusing to grant the applicant full access to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service (Document No 6865/09) on the European Parliament’s draft amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

1.The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

2.ClientEarth is ordered to bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3.The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden are ordered to bear their own respective costs.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia