Orders nº T-205/09 AJ of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, July 16, 2009

• Resolution Date: July 16, 2009
• Issuing Organization: Court of First Instance of the European Communities
• Decision Number: T-205/09 AJ

In Case T-205/09 AJ,

George Francis Alex Dalli, residing at St. Paul-s Bay (Malta),

applicant,

v

European Parliament

and

Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Kraemer and B. Schima, acting as Agents,

defendants,

APPLICATION for legal aid pursuant to Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

makes the following

Order

1 By application received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 14 May 2009, Mr G.F.A. Dalli requests that he be granted legal aid prior to bringing an action before the Court in respect of an alleged infringement of his intellectual property rights which, he claims, results from disclosure of his wind turbine innovation project to the general public by the Commission and the European Parliament.

2 Under Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure, legal aid may be granted only on condition that the action in respect of which the application is made does not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

3 The defendants were invited to submit their written observations on the application for legal aid pursuant to Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

4 The Commission submitted its observations on 29 June 2009, whilst the European Parliament allowed the period given to expire without expressing a view.

5 In its observations, the Commission contends that Mr Dalli-s application for legal aid should be refused as being manifestly unfounded.

6 In that regard, it must be observed, first of all, that the present application for legal aid does not indicate in a coherent and comprehensible manner what the substance of the proposed action might be.

7 In any event, Mr Dalli appears to wish to place on record the infringement of his intellectual property right and of his right to privacy allegedly committed by the authorities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in conjunction with the Commission, even though he designates as defendants the Commission and the Parliament.

8 So far as concerns the alleged infringement committed by the United Kingdom authorities, however, it must be stated that the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to deal with an action challenging the conduct or acts of national authorities.

9 Furthermore, in merely seeking an -equitable judicial remedy-, Mr Dalli provides no other explanation as to the nature of the proposed action.

10 Even if it were...