Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (C-331/05 P)
Judgment
The appeal
27

Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (C-331/05 P)

Judgment of 28 Jun 2007law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-331-05/para_27@2026-11-10

27Those concerned are free to choose to have recourse to the Ombudsman. The costs thus freely incurred by the complainant cannot therefore be regarded as damage caused by the institution in question.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-331/05 P · ECLI:EU:C:2007:390
Decided: 28 Jun 2007
Procedure: Appeal
Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Rapporteur: K. Schiemann
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak
Bench: 5 judges
C.W.A. Timmermans, P. Kūris, K. Schiemann, L. Bay Larsen, J.-C Bonichot
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62005CJ0331

Topics

Law governing the institutions Non-contractual liability

History · 1 version

28 Jun 2007Reading

Connections

Cited by 14: WS and Others v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (C-679/23 P); Thomas Bindl v European Commission (T-354/22); Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Werner Jaschinsky v European Commission (T-631/16); European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen (C-337/15 P); Novar GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-726/14); CN v European Parliament (T-343/13)2 provisions; Amitié Srl v European Commission (T-234/12); Kalliopi Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union (T-241/09); Jürgen Gutknecht v European Commission (T-561/08); SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-481/07); CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-497/06); Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (C-47/07); Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk v European Commission (T-48/05); Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (C-59/06)
Cites 9: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Aruba (C-17/98); Finanziaria Siderurgica Finsider SpA (in liquidation), Italsider SpA (in liquidation) and Societa Acciaierie e Ferriere Lombarde Falck SpA v Commission of the European Communities (C-363/88); The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health (C-210/03); Antoon Hepels v European Commission (C-54/77); 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Decision of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties; P. Dumortier frères SA and others v Council of the European Communities (C-64/76); Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (T-294/04); Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (Staff Regulations of Officials)