8.8.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/18

—

(Case C-363/22 P)

(2022/C 303/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Planistat Europe, Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot (represented by: F. Martin Laprade, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

—Confirm the judgment of the General Court in that it declared admissible in part the action with regard to the compensation for the damage suffered by the appellants as a result of making false accusations;

—Annul the judgment of the General Court in that it found the action of the appellants in part time-barred and in that it dismissed the action for non-contractual liability as a result;

—Find that the Commission incurred non-contractual liability;

—Order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 150 000 for the non-material damage suffered by Mr Hervé-Patrick Charlot;

—Order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 11 600 000 for the non-material damage suffered by the appellants;

—Order the Commission to recognise publicly its error so that the image and reputation of the appellants is restored;

—Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds.

The first ground alleges an error of law committed by the General Court that misconstrued the event giving rise to the damage relied upon by the appellants, while failing to mention the fact that the non-material damage resulted also from the media coverage of the complaints brought before the criminal authorities, and stating that the material damage resulted exclusively from the termination of the contracts concluded with the Commission.

That error led the General Court to infer, mistakenly, that the claims brought by the appellants were in part time-barred.

The General Court also failed to apply correctly the rule of law concerning the procedure for calculating the limitation period.

The second ground also alleges that the General Court erred in law in the assessment of the unlawfulness of the defamatory behaviour. The first part of that ground alleges infringement of the fundamental principle of the right to respect for private life; the second part alleges infringement of the right to sound administration.

The third and final ground alleges an error of law on the part of the General Court as regards assessing the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link.

—