Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2023/68

(Case T-519/23)

(C/2023/68)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: A. Grád, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Principally, the applicant claims that the General Court should:

—(i) find, pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, that the European Union caused damage to the applicant on account of the fact that the European Commission, by adopting Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69 of 16 January 2019 laying down technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, (1) infringed, by virtue of unlawful legislative action, the prohibition on discrimination laid down in Article 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and (ii) order the defendant to pay the applicant, within 15 days following the day on which the judgment becomes final, EUR 1 590 088 by way of damages;

—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, the applicant claims that, should it find that the principal claims are unfounded, the Court should:

—(i) find, pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, that the European Union, by adopting Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69, caused damage to the applicant by virtue of lawful legislative action, and (ii) order the defendant to pay the applicant, within 15 days following the day on which the judgment becomes final, EUR 1 590 088 by way of damages (compensation);

—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 340 and 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter.

—The compressed-gas alarm weapons designed to shoot rubber bullets, marketed and manufactured by the applicant on the basis of its utility model, are placed, in Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69, in the same category as all alarm and signal weapons designed to shoot solid ammunition, even though it is their precise characteristic, in line with the utility model, that they cannot shoot steel ammunition, and that, on account of the shape of the mould, they cannot be converted into firearms using ordinary tools, as referred to in Implementing Directive 2019/69, or using any other tool. Consequently, given that it has an exclusive utility model, the applicant constitutes a single group.

—Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69 does not regulate alarm weapons manufactured on the basis of such a distinctive utility model by creating specific rules, even though the specificity of the utility model would require that, in view of Article 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter; thus, the prohibition on discrimination is infringed. As a consequence of the economic restriction resulting from Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69, as from 1 January 2023, the applicant’s turnover from the marketing and manufacturing, in line with the model, of those alarm weapons designed to shoot rubber bullets has considerably decreased and practically ceased.

—Pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, concerning non-contractual liability, the European Union is, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, to make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties. The applicant has suffered damage as a consequence of the adoption of an unlawful measure.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 340 TFEU.

—The obligation to provide compensation under Article 340 TFEU is not limited to making good any damage caused by an unlawful act. Pursuant to Article 340 TFEU, the European Union’s liability also encompasses damage caused by lawful acts or lawful legislative action, such that the European Union is required to make good the damage suffered by the injured party. As regards the damage alleged by the applicant in the present case, all the conditions that have to be examined in accordance with the case-law on compensation for damage caused by lawful legislative acts (2) are met.

(2) Judgment of 6 December 1984, Biovilac v EEC, 59/83, EU:C:1984:380.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/68/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)