Case C-120/14P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2014 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10 Christoph Klein v European Commission
Date: 2014-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contractual liability, indemnification, infringement of EU law, protective clause








C_2014184EN.01001201.xml










16.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/12





Appeal brought on 29 March 2014 by Christoph Klein against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10 Christoph Klein v European Commission
(Case C-120/14P)
2014/C 184/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Christoph Klein (represented by: H.-J. Ahlt und M. Ahlt)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 in Case T-309/10;










—


declare that by failing to adopt a decision in the safeguard clause procedure in progress since 1998 concerning the contested medicinal products, the Commission has infringed its obligations under Directive 93/42 and European Union law and has, as a result, caused the appellant direct damage;










—


order the Commission to pay damages of an amount still to be calculated in respect of the damage caused to the appellant;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


in the alternative: set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 in Case T–309/10 and refer the proceedings back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By incorrectly applying the provisions relating to the time-barring of actions in matters arising from the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the General Court infringed Article 46 of the Statute, in so far as it failed to take account of the fact that a successful application for legal aid which, for the purpose of the interruption of the limitation period, amounts to the bringing of proceedings.
Next, the General Court infringed Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42 (1) in so far as it concluded that those two articles are mutually exclusive. A correct interpretation is, on the other hand, that both provisions are concurrently applicable. Furthermore, the Court fails to provide sufficient grounds for its conclusion.
Further, the General Court infringed European Union law in so far as it erred in law by failing to classify the proceedings brought by the German authorities as safeguard clause proceedings.
The more than 10-year duration of the proceedings before the Commission infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Principle of sound administration. The General Court erred in law by failing to take those infringements into consideration.
Finally, the proceedings before the Court contain breaches of procedural rules. Several documents produced in support of the appellant’s arguments were not taken into consideration. In addition, the statement and legal arguments of the European Parliament, which the appellant adopted, were simply ignored.


(1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169).