{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-566-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-566-25-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-24","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:210f09","proof":"sha256:a11a0e7faccea9650a392d6bf43cb403c3cf4da84130a233456e26f9c637925d","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-566-25-p","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"FF’s arguments","paragraphs":["para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_112","para_113","para_114"],"kind":"costs"},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:","paragraphs":["para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123"],"kind":"operative"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"12 March 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"( Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Cooperation of the police authorities and other law enforcement agencies of the Member States – Article 340 TFEU – Regulation (EU) 2016/794 – Article 50(1) – Non-contractual liability of the European Union Agency for Law Enfo …","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"In Case C‑566/25 P,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 21 August 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"FF, represented by J. Reisinger, advocaat,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"the other parties to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust),","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"defendants at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Kingdom of Spain,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Kingdom of the Netherlands,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"interveners at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"composed of O. Spineanu-Matei (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Piçarra and N. Fenger, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Advocate General: A. Rantos,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, in accordance with Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"1         By his appeal, FF asks the Court of Justice to set aside in part the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2025, FF v Eurojust and Europol (Sky ECC III) (T‑484/24, EU:T:2025:645; ‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking, inter …","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"The Convention of 29 May 2000","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"2         Article 13(1) of the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 197, p. 3; ‘the Convention of 29 May 2000’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"‘By mutual agreement, the competent authorities of two or more Member States may set up a joint investigation team for a specific purpose and a limited period, which may be extended by mutual consent, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the Member States setting up the team. The composition of the team shall be set out in the agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"A joint investigation team may, in particular, be set up where:","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"(a)      a Member State’s investigations into criminal offences require difficult and demanding investigations having links with other Member States;","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(b)      a number of Member States are conducting investigations into criminal offences in which the circumstances of the case necessitate coordinated, concerted action in the Member States involved.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"A request for the setting up of a joint investigation team may be made by any of the Member States concerned. The team shall be set up in one of the Member States in which the investigations are expected to be carried out.’","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Directive 2014/41/EU","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"3         Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ 2014 L 130, p. 1) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"‘A European Investigation Order (EIO) is a judicial decision which has been issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State … to have one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in another Member State (‘the executing State’) to obtain evidence in accordance with this Directive.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"The EIO may also be issued for obtaining evidence that is already in the possession of the competent authorities of the executing State.’","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Regulation (EU) 2016/794","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"4         Article 50(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ 2016 L 135, p. 53), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"‘Any individual who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful data processing operation shall have the right to receive compensation for damage suffered, either from Europol in accordance with Article 340 TFEU or from the Member State in which the event that gave rise to the damage occurred, in …","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Background to the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"5         The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 10 of the order under appeal and may, for the purposes of the present proceedings, be summarised as follows.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"6         According to his assertions, the appellant is the subject, in Belgium, of criminal proceedings in respect of drug trafficking charges which are based almost exclusively on the use of data from mobile telephones operating under the ‘Sky ECC’ licence; ‘ECC’ means ‘Elliptic Curve Cryptography’.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"7         Those mobile telephones had special software and modified hardware that enabled, via servers installed in Roubaix (France), end-to-end encrypted communication that could not be intercepted by conventional investigative means.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"8         In the late 2010s, investigative measures initiated by the Belgian, French and Netherlands authorities targeted the ‘Sky ECC organisation’, which was suspected of commercialising products and encrypted communications services specifically aimed at facilitating the commission of criminal offences.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"9         Following those national investigative measures, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands adopted, at the end of 2018, European Investigation Orders in accordance with Directive 2014/41, requesting the French Republic to ‘create an image’ of the servers that were used unde …","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"10       On 13 December 2019, the Belgian, French and Netherlands authorities, by an agreement adopted on the basis of Article 13 of the Convention of 29 May 2000 and Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (OJ 2002 L 162, p. 1), set up a joint investigation team, which led to the sharing, between Europol and the three Member States concerned, of intercepted raw data, which then had to be analysed, as well as the results of that analysis.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"11       In that context, Europol stored the data in its IT system, undertook cross-checking, produced intelligence reports, generated data visualisation graphs and interpreted multilingual data sets.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"The proceedings before the General Court and the order under appeal","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"12       By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 18 September 2024, the appellant brought an action seeking, in essence, compensation, in the amount of EUR 30 000, for the non-material damage which he claimed to have suffered as a result of acts committed by Eurojust, Europol and certain Member States.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"13       By the order under appeal, the General Court, after finding, in paragraph 24 of that order, that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to find that the agreement referred to in paragraph 10 of the present order was ‘inadmissible’, dismissed, in paragraph 46 of the order under appeal, the action as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it was directed against Eurojust.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"14       In paragraphs 86 and 87 of that order, the General Court also dismissed the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law in so far as it was directed against Europol, on the ground that one of the three cumulative conditions for Europol to incur non-contractual liability as an EU agency, namely the condition relating to the reality of the alleged damage, was not satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"15       In that regard, the General Court held, in essence, in paragraphs 55 to 85 of the order under appeal, that that condition was not satisfied because the appellant had merely put forward unsubstantiated allegations regarding that condition and thus had not proved the existence and extent of the non-material damage for which he was seeking compensation from Europol.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"16       As regards, in particular, the non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of the fact that the appellant’s personal data ‘could end up in the wrong hands’, the General Court held, in paragraphs 66 to 68 of the order under appeal, that such damage, which was future and purely hypothetical, could not give rise to compensation, since the appellant had not demonstrated, moreover, that that alleged damage was imminent and foreseeable with sufficient certainty.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"17       As regards the non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of the fact that the appellant’s personal data ‘ended up in the wrong hands’, the General Court held, in essence, in paragraphs 69 to 77 of the order under appeal, that the appellant had not provided, in particular in the doc …","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"18       Furthermore, in paragraphs 78 to 81 of that order, the General Court held that the appellant had also failed to demonstrate that that damage necessarily resulted from Europol’s conduct, since he had not produced evidence to identify the personal data that had allegedly been the subject of unlawful processing operations and to enable an assessment as to whether and to what extent that damage necessarily resulted from those operations.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"19       In paragraph 88 of the order under appeal, the General Court therefore dismissed the appellant’s action in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"Form of order sought by FF","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"20       By his appeal, FF claims that the Court of Justice should:","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"–        set aside in part the order under appeal in so far as the General Court dismissed his action seeking compensation for the non-material damage allegedly caused by Europol as a result of the allegedly unlawful obtaining and processing of his personal data that were used publicly in criminal proceedings brought against him;","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"–        uphold the action in part by ruling that Europol caused him non-material damage due to unlawfully obtaining and processing, in breach of his right to respect for his privacy, his personal data that were used in those criminal proceedings, and by awarding him compensation in the amount of EUR 15 000 or, in the alternative, symbolic compensation or any other form of appropriate non-material compensation; and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"–        order Europol to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"The appeal","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"21       Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal without, where appropriate, serving it on the other parties to the proceedings before the General Court.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"22       That provision must be applied in the present case.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"23       By his appeal, the appellant asks, in essence, that the Court of Justice set aside the order under appeal in so far as, by that order, the General Court dismissed his action against Europol as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. He states in that regard that he does not dispute the Ge …","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"24       In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal alleging (i) that the General Court erred in law in that it failed to examine whether one of the conditions for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability, namely the condition relating to the unlawfulness of …","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"The first ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"FF’s a rguments","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"25       By his first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in paragraph 56 of the order under appeal, the General Court disregarded the case-law of the Court of Justice and certain sources of international law by failing to examine, in the first place, the condition for the European Union t …","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"26       While acknowledging that it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular from the judgment of 9 September 1999, Lucaccioni v Commission (C‑257/98 P, EU:C:1999:402, paragraph 13), that the EU Courts are not obliged to examine in a particular order the three conditions for …","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"27       According to the appellant, even if the other two conditions for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability are not satisfied, an examination, in the first place, of the condition relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct complained of would enable the EU Courts, if that condit …","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"28       It must be recalled, as a preliminary point, that, according to Article 50(1) of Regulation 2016/794, any individual who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful data processing operation has the right to receive compensation for damage suffered from Europol in accordance with Article 340 TFEU. Consequently, the case-law of the Court of Justice on the latter article is relevant in the present case.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"29       In accordance with the case-law referred to, in essence, by the General Court in paragraph 55 of the order under appeal, the European Union may incur non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU only if a number of conditions are fulfilled, namely the existence o …","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"30       It is also apparent from the case-law referred to in the preceding paragraph that, if any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the action must be dismissed in its entirety and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions for non-contractual liability on the part of the European U …","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"31       Consequently, first, the General Court did not err in deciding to examine, in the first place, in paragraph 56 of the order under appeal, the condition relating to the reality of alleged non-material damage, without examining beforehand the condition relating to the unlawfulness of the cond …","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"32       The arguments put forward by the appellant are not such as to call into question the case-law referred to in paragraph 30 of the present order.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"33       First, in paragraph 20 of the judgment of 15 September 1994, KYDEP v Council and Commission (C‑146/91, EU:C:1994:329), it is true that the Court of Justice stated, after recalling the three conditions for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability, that ‘the Court’s examination m …","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"34       Second, the fact that, in the present case, the appellant claims to have suffered non-material damage cannot call into question the case-law referred to in paragraph 30 of the present order since that case-law has already been applied in cases in which non-material damage was alleged withou …","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"35       Third, as regards the argument that a finding that the conduct complained of is unlawful would, at the very least, allow an applicant, even if the other two conditions for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability are not satisfied, to avoid being ordered to pay the costs incurr …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"36       Furthermore, although, in the circumstances provided for therein, Article 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, and Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provide that one pa …","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"37       Fourth, while it is true, as follows from paragraph 72 of the judgment of 28 May 2013, Abdulrahim v Council and Commission (C‑239/12 P, EU:C:2013:331), that the recognition, in the judgments or orders of the Court of Justice or of the General Court, of the unlawfulness of an act or conduct …","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"38       As regards, fifth, the fact that the case-law or the practice of courts or of tribunals or international organisations other than the Court of Justice have enshrined the priority nature of the examination of the condition relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct complained of, suffice it …","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"39       As regards, more specifically, the case-law of the ECtHR relied on by the appellant, according to which a finding of a violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, by a Contracting State of that c …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"40       In the light of the foregoing, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"FF’s arguments","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"41       By his second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court made several errors of law in finding, in paragraph 63 and in paragraph 65 et seq. of the order under appeal, that the condition, for Europol to incur non-contractual liability, relating to the reality of the heads of non-material damage referred to in those paragraphs, was not satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"42       First, the appellant argues that he did not, contrary to what the order under appeal states, merely assert, in the application at first instance, that he suffered non-material damage as a result of the fact that the personal data concerning him ‘could fall into the wrong hands’, but that he …","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"43       Second, the appellant argues that the General Court imposed an excessive standard of proof on him in order to demonstrate the reality of the heads of non-material damage concerned. In his view, the General Court should have examined whether the existence of damage was overall plausible, tak …","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"44       In particular, he argues, the General Court failed to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which it is not necessary, in order to establish the reality of non-material damage, to submit an offer of evidence to that effect, provided that the applicant establishes …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"45       The appellant adds that, notwithstanding the offer of evidence to which he referred before the General Court and which he submits to the Court of Justice at the appeal stage, namely a report from the Belgian prosecuting authority certifying that he was indeed the user of the ‘Sky ECC’ accou …","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"46       The appellant also submits that, by providing the data used in the criminal case concerning him, he might be led to produce data other than those held by Europol and which are therefore not in Europol’s possession, which would only aggravate the harm to him resulting from the infringement o …","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"47       As a preliminary point, it must be observed that, as regards the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the ‘publicity’ given to his personal data which were processed by Europol, none of the arguments put forward by the appellant in support of his complaint …","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"48       It follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"49       As to the substance, the appellant complains that the General Court, in the first place, distorted his arguments in that it stated that the non-material damage referred to in paragraph 65 et seq. of the order under appeal resulted from the fact that his personal data ‘could have ended up in the wrong hands’, whereas the appellant had also claimed that that damage resulted from the fact that those data did in fact ‘end up in the wrong hands’.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"50       In that regard, suffice it to note that the appellant has misread the order under appeal. Far from distorting the appellant’s arguments, the General Court clearly contemplated, in paragraph 65 of that order, that the non-material damage resulted, according to the appellant, from the fact th …","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"51       In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court imposed on him an excessive standard of proof in order to demonstrate that there was actual non-material damage resulting from the fact that his personal data had ‘ended up in the wrong hands’.","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"52       In that regard, first, as regards the argument that the appellant provided the General Court, without being contradicted by Europol, with the usernames of the accounts that he held on the ‘Sky ECC’ communication service, in respect of which the personal data were allegedly unlawfully proces …","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"53       In so far as the appellant’s argument referred to in the preceding paragraph must be understood as criticising the General Court for having failed to take into account Europol’s silence as to the appellant’s use of several ‘Sky ECC’ accounts, the respective usernames of which the appellant …","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"54       That being so, it follows from paragraph 72 of the order under appeal that, in his reply, the appellant had stated that he had an ‘official report’ containing personal data that concerned him and that had been intercepted and then processed inter alia by Europol, but that he did not intend …","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"55       In those circumstances, in so far as, by his argument summarised in paragraph 52 of the present order, the appellant complains that the General Court rejected, in paragraphs 72 to 76 of the order under appeal, that ‘official report’ as evidence, it must be observed that, in those paragraphs …","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"56       The submission of an item of evidence was essential for the General Court to be able to examine whether the appellant was the holder of several ‘Sky ECC’ accounts, in respect of which the personal data concerning him had been transmitted to Europol and, therefore, to distinguish individuall …","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"57       In that regard, it must also be noted that the appellant does not dispute, by his second ground of appeal, paragraph 59 of the order under appeal, according to which the General Court held that, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 52 of the present order, the condition …","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"58       The decision of the ECtHR of 24 September 2024, A.L. and E.J. v. France (CE:ECHR:2024:0924DEC004471520), relied on by the appellant, cannot call into question the foregoing considerations. In paragraphs 112 to 114 of that decision, the ECtHR held, in essence, that where an end-to-end encryp …","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"59       As follows from paragraph 56 of the present order, the appellant specifically failed to produce, before the General Court, such evidence which he claimed to have at his disposal in the present case in order to distinguish individually, so far as he is concerned, the reality of the alleged damage.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"60       As regards the fact that the appellant has produced before the Court of Justice the ‘official report’ in question, it is sufficient to recall that an offer of evidence submitted for the first time before the Court of Justice, when it could have been presented before the General Court, must …","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"61       Second, contrary to what the appellant claims, the General Court duly took into account, in paragraph 78 of the order under appeal, the case-law resulting from the judgment of 16 July 2009, SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission (C‑481/07 P, EU:C:2009:461, paragraph 38), according to which, e …","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"62       In so far as the appellant claims, in that regard, that the General Court, in paragraphs 79 to 81 of the order under appeal, erred in law in holding, contrary to the case-law referred to in the preceding paragraph, that he should have adduced evidence enabling the General Court to identify …","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"63       The General Court held, in essence, in those paragraphs 79 to 81, that that case-law did not exempt the appellant from his obligation to demonstrate, at least by way of prima facie evidence, that, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 52 of the present order, the damage o …","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"64       In the light of the foregoing, the second ground of appeal must be rejected as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"65       It follows that the appeal must be rejected as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"66       Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"67       In the present case, since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the defendants at first instance and, therefore, before they could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant is to bear his own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"1.       The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"2.       FF shall bear his own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Luxembourg, 12 March 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"O. Spineanu-Matei","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"President of the Chamber","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_123"}],"operative_part":"On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:\n\n1.       The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.\n\n2.       FF shall bear his own costs.\n\nLuxembourg, 12 March 2026.\n\n*       Language of the case: English.","word_count":7162,"cites":["C-566/25","T-484/24","C-257/98","C-146/91","C-679/23","C-136/24","C-138/17","C-146/17","C-297/22","C-419/08","C-239/12","C-448/23","C-481/07","C-777/22","C-789/22","C-346/17","C-176/21","C-575/14"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"ed23dd15c404e4451f6d13b6a76dcc14e93616d87f3f38617b89974370dc2b99","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CO0566","fetched_at":"2026-10-05T05:43:13.919+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-566-25-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-566-25-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-566-25-p","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-566-25-p"},"hash":"sha256:a11a0e7faccea9650a392d6bf43cb403c3cf4da84130a233456e26f9c637925d","version":"legal-2026-10-24","expires":"2026-10-25T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-24+legal-2026-10-24+2026-10-24T16:40:06","content_hash":"sha256:a11a0e7faccea9650a392d6bf43cb403c3cf4da84130a233456e26f9c637925d","revalidate_after":"2026-10-24T19:51:48.959Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-566-25-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-566-25-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-566-25-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-566-25-p"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-566-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-724a0de1d5cb1f949b575a75168c59a0","response_hash":"sha256:a11a0e7faccea9650a392d6bf43cb403c3cf4da84130a233456e26f9c637925d"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-02T23:28:27.317Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-566-25-p&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":10508}}