11.9.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/15

—

(Case C-346/17 P)

(2017/C 300/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 in Case T-309/10 RENV;

2.order the respondent to pay to the appellant EUR 1 562 662,30 plus interest from the date on which judgment is delivered, in the amount of eight percentage points above the base interest rate applicable on the date in question;

3.find that the Commission, on the merits of the case, must compensate the appellant for the damage, as yet to be determined, which he claims to have suffered since 15 September 2006;

4.order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

5.in the alternative: set aside the judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 in Case T-309/10 RENV and refer the case back to the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following grounds:

First, the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by misinterpreting the binding scope of the judgment of the Court of Justice and erred in law in assuming that the appellant could not claim any compensation with regard to his ‘effecto’ device on the basis of the inadmissibility of the fourth ground of appeal in Case C-120/14 P.

Second, the General Court also infringed the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by failing to be bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law. In paragraph 95 of its judgment, the Court of Justice held that the original judgment under appeal was to be set aside in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action in that it sought that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant … . Contrary to this legal assessment, the General Court erred in law in finding that, even on the merits of the case, there was no entitlement to compensation as the substantive requirements had not been satisfied.

Third, the General Court, contrary to Article 84(1) of its Rules of Procedure, rejected the claim that the Commission, due to its inaction in the safeguard clause procedure under Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42, had also infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the ground that this was an inadmissible new submission. This is an error in law due to the fact that the appellant had indeed already referred, in his application, to the principle of good administration which, in terms of content, corresponds to the principle of sound administration and to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Accordingly, there is no inadmissible new submission.

Fourth, the General Court proceeded on the basis that the directive does not confer any rights on the appellant personally or on the company atmed AG. The appellant submits that this constitutes an infringement of EU law because both are addressees in a safeguard clause procedure and can rely on the principles of the free movement of goods as central, economically-affected persons.

Fifth, the General Court erred in law in denying the existence of a causal link between the Commission’s unlawful conduct and the damage alleged. The General Court thereby distorted the facts of the case and erred in law in its classification of facts. Furthermore, the General Court thereby once again infringed Article 8(2) of Directive 93/42, failed to undertake a legal assessment and did not provide adequate grounds for its decision.

Sixth, the General Court distorted the facts and evidence by infringing the principles of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights through its failure to have regard for the annexes COM RENV 1 and 2.

Seventh, the General Court infringed the principles of the right to a fair hearing, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as Article 64(3)(d) of its Rules of Procedure and Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in that it failed to accede to the appellant’s request that the Commission be ordered to produce the documents relating to the safeguard clause.

—