Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2009 – Srinivasan v European Ombudsman
(Case C‑580/08 P)
Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded – European Ombudsman – Decision to take no further action on a complaint of maladministration – Action for annulment – Dismissal on the grounds of manifest inadmissibility and manifest lack of jurisdiction – Challenge
1. Appeals – Grounds – Order of the Court of First Instance dismissing an action for annulment as manifestly inadmissible – Grounds invoked in support of the appeal relating to questions of substance – Grounds manifestly unfounded (Art. 225 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119) (see paras 13-18, 22-27, 29-31)
2. Procedure – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis – Order made without prior publication of a notice in the Official Journal and without designation of a Judge as Advocate General – Whether lawful (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 2(2), 18, 19 and 111) (see paras 33-36)
3. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Manifest inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 112(1)(c), and 119) (see paras 40-43)
Re:
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 3 November 2008 in Case T-196/08 | Srinivasan | v | European Ombudsman | by which that Court dismissed an action for the annulment of the decision of the Ombudsman to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint seeking a declaration that the Commission had failed properly to deal with his complaint concerning alleged infringements by Ireland of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17). |
Operative part
1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |
2. | | Mr Srinivasan shall bear his own costs. |