# C_2023134EN.01000501.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/5

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2023 by Firearms United Network, Tomasz Walter Stępień, Michał Budzyński and Andrzej Marcjanik against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 21 December 2022 in Case T-187/21, Firearms United Network and Others v Commission

(Case C-105/23 P)

(2023/C 134/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellants: Firearms United Network, Tomasz Walter Stępień, Michał Budzyński and Andrzej Marcjanik (represented by: E. Woźniak, adwokat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and grant the forms of order sought by the appellants before the General Court as set out in their application; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and grant the forms of order sought by the appellants before the General Court as set out in their application;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | infringement of Article 88(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 91(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Article 19(1) and (3)(a) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the General Court failed to take into account the appellants’ request relating to the admission and taking of expert evidence, as well as a number of procedural defects in the assessment of the evidence and errors in the findings made by the General Court in its judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 88(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 91(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Article 19(1) and (3)(a) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the General Court failed to take into account the appellants’ request relating to the admission and taking of expert evidence, as well as a number of procedural defects in the assessment of the evidence and errors in the findings made by the General Court in its judgment;

| — | an erroneous assessment of the evidence submitted in the application leading the General Court wrongly to find that the applicants had not succeeded in calling into question the analyses and assertions which formed the basis of the introduction into the legal order of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/57 of 25 January 2021 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

an erroneous assessment of the evidence submitted in the application leading the General Court wrongly to find that the applicants had not succeeded in calling into question the analyses and assertions which formed the basis of the introduction into the legal order of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/57 of 25 January 2021 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards lead in gunshot in or around wetlands; (1)

| — | the judgment under appeal erred in assuming that the presumption under Regulation (EU) 2021/57 is a rebuttable presumption. The appellants state that, in any legal system based on the rule of law, any presumption which may have adverse consequences for a citizen must be rebuttable. Consequently, the mere fact that it is rebuttable does not mean that that presumption is not unlawful. In addition, the application of a presumption must always be justified on clear grounds. However, the judgment under appeal disregards the fact that Regulation (EU) 2021/57 does not observe that principle and does not indicate any argument which could constitute legitimate grounds for a presumption imposing additional procedural obligations on a citizen. Applying presumptions in a way that does not guarantee observance of a citizen’s procedural rights may in turn result in a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

the judgment under appeal erred in assuming that the presumption under Regulation (EU) 2021/57 is a rebuttable presumption. The appellants state that, in any legal system based on the rule of law, any presumption which may have adverse consequences for a citizen must be rebuttable. Consequently, the mere fact that it is rebuttable does not mean that that presumption is not unlawful. In addition, the application of a presumption must always be justified on clear grounds. However, the judgment under appeal disregards the fact that Regulation (EU) 2021/57 does not observe that principle and does not indicate any argument which could constitute legitimate grounds for a presumption imposing additional procedural obligations on a citizen. Applying presumptions in a way that does not guarantee observance of a citizen’s procedural rights may in turn result in a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence;

| — | infringement by the General Court of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, namely Articles 16, 17(1), 21(1), 45(1), 48(1) and 52(1) and of the Treaty on European Union, namely Articles 2, 3(2) and (3), and 5(2), (3) and (4), by reason of the General Court’s dismissal of the action brought against Regulation (EU) 2021/57, thereby keeping that regulation in force in the EU legal order; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement by the General Court of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, namely Articles 16, 17(1), 21(1), 45(1), 48(1) and 52(1) and of the Treaty on European Union, namely Articles 2, 3(2) and (3), and 5(2), (3) and (4), by reason of the General Court’s dismissal of the action brought against Regulation (EU) 2021/57, thereby keeping that regulation in force in the EU legal order;

| — | an abuse of power by dismissing the action and thus leaving in force a regulation which, in practice, leads to a considerable restriction on civilian shooting sports within the European Union, even though the Commission previously did not succeed in banning the possession of firearms by private persons. Moreover, according to the appellants, Regulation (EU) 2021/57 does not have the effect of restricting the use of lead ammunition generally and therefore does not attain the objectives for which it was enacted, but merely constitutes a restriction on civilian shooting sports which is disproportionate to its actual benefits. |
| --- | --- |

—

an abuse of power by dismissing the action and thus leaving in force a regulation which, in practice, leads to a considerable restriction on civilian shooting sports within the European Union, even though the Commission previously did not succeed in banning the possession of firearms by private persons. Moreover, according to the appellants, Regulation (EU) 2021/57 does not have the effect of restricting the use of lead ammunition generally and therefore does not attain the objectives for which it was enacted, but merely constitutes a restriction on civilian shooting sports which is disproportionate to its actual benefits.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 24, p. 19.

---