# C_2017283EN.01002202.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/22

---

Appeal brought on 6 June 2017 by HB and Others against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-361/14, HB and Others v European Commission

(Case C-336/17 P)

(2017/C 283/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: HB and Others (represented by: P. Brockmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 April 2017 in Case T-361/14, HB and Others v Commission, by which their action was dismissed as unfounded and they were ordered to pay the costs, and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union so that a new hearing can be held;
  in the alternative, |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 April 2017 in Case T-361/14, HB and Others v Commission, by which their action was dismissed as unfounded and they were ordered to pay the costs, and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union so that a new hearing can be held;

HB and Others

Commission

in the alternative,

| 2. | should the Court take the view that it has sufficient information before it for that purpose, itself give a ruling on the merits and confirm that the psychological interaction between humans and animals is a matter that comes within the competence of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

should the Court take the view that it has sufficient information before it for that purpose, itself give a ruling on the merits and confirm that the psychological interaction between humans and animals is a matter that comes within the competence of the European Union;

| 3. | in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: Procedural defects consisting in an infringement of the right to be heard, in that:

First ground of appeal:

| — | the acknowledgment by counsel and the judges of the timely appearance of the first appellant at the hearing on 27 September 2016 was prevented because a court official prohibited the admission of the first appellant’s young daughter, her child carer having been delayed. The first appellant was consequently refused entry and, contrary to the statement of that official, no information was passed on to the judges or to her counsel with regard to her presence; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the acknowledgment by counsel and the judges of the timely appearance of the first appellant at the hearing on 27 September 2016 was prevented because a court official prohibited the admission of the first appellant’s young daughter, her child carer having been delayed. The first appellant was consequently refused entry and, contrary to the statement of that official, no information was passed on to the judges or to her counsel with regard to her presence; and

| — | the information that they must actively signify their presence in the court room in order to be noted as being present was also not passed on to the other appellants, since, although they arrived before the start of the proceedings, they did so after the time indicated on the formal document requesting their appearance in court. |
| --- | --- |

—

the information that they must actively signify their presence in the court room in order to be noted as being present was also not passed on to the other appellants, since, although they arrived before the start of the proceedings, they did so after the time indicated on the formal document requesting their appearance in court.

In this respect, the hearing of the parties, which had been applied for in writing, was precluded and this, in the appellants’ view, led to an erroneous legal assessment, namely that their action was unfounded.

Second ground of appeal: Procedural defects resulting from an assessment of the probative nature of evidence before its production was ordered, in that:

Second ground of appeal:

| — | all offers to adduce evidence were improperly rejected and without any reason being given; |
| --- | --- |

—

all offers to adduce evidence were improperly rejected and without any reason being given;

| — | in particular, with regard to issues of an interdisciplinary nature, no discussion by experts was permitted; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular, with regard to issues of an interdisciplinary nature, no discussion by experts was permitted; and

| — | no written or oral questions were submitted to the parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

no written or oral questions were submitted to the parties.

This, in the appellants’ view, led to an erroneous legal assessment, namely that their action was unfounded.

Third ground of appeal: In the event that the Court of Justice should take the view that ethics are a matter involving human rights and an important requirement for integration, it would be possible for it to give a decision on the merits in the light of the case file.

Third ground of appeal:

---