Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:252
Date: 2015-04-22
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Action for damages;Appeal - successful
Origin: Austria

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — Klein v Commission (Case C‑120/14 P) 1(1) Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Directive 93/42/EEC — Articles 8 and 18 — Medical devices — Inaction by the Commission following notification of a decision to prohibit placing on the market — Limitation period — Suspensory effect of an application for legal aid on the limitation period — Safeguard clause procedure 1. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to a judicial hearing — No obligation to incorporate in the decision all the submissions of the parties (see paras 39, 91) 2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Interruption — Conditions — Application for legal aid — No effect (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 96(4)) see paras 43-46) 3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawful conduct of the institutions — Inaction by the Commission following notification of a decision to prohibit placing of a medical device on the market — Act not amounting to unlawfulness (Council Directive 93/42, Arts 8 and 18) (see paras 71, 73-79) 4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 85, 86) Operative part The Court: 1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Klein v Commission (T‑309/10, EU:T:2014:19) in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action in that it sought that the European Commission be ordered to pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Mr Christoph Klein from 15 September 2006; 2. dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; 3. refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; 4. reserves the costs. 1– OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.