Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2012.#Smanor SA v European Commission and European Ombudsman.#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.#Case C‑474/11 P.

ECLI:EU:C:2012:121Eu Chamb 08 CMar 1, 2012

Open source

Full text





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 —
Smanor v Commission and European Ombudsman

(Case C‑474/11 P)

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.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.