Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/9 |

---

Appeal brought on 3 December 2012 by J against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament

(Case C-550/12 P)

2013/C 32/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 and declare that ‘The judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v European Parliament is set aside in its entirety. The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs’. |

If the appeal is deemed to be founded, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | grant in full the application made at first instance for the annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 rejecting petition No 1673/2009 submitted by the appellant on 19 November 2009; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs incurred at first instance;  in the alterative, |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision to be taken. |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court wrongly found there to have been no infringement of the duty to state reasons on the part of the Committee on Petitions in its declaration of inadmissibility of the appellant’s petition. The appellant submits that, in its petition, it complained expressly of the infringement of the right to property and an infringement of Directive 2004/48/EC[(1)](#ntr1-C_2013032EN.01000901-E0001) by the Austrian authorities. Those infringements were not addressed in the declaration of inadmissibility of the petition — even though they were referred to expressly — with the result that it was not possible for the appellant to understand why the European Parliament deemed its petition to be inadmissible.

Moreover, the General Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the conduct of the Austrian authorities was in no way linked to the implementation of European Union law. The Austrian authorities confiscated documents belonging to the appellant which are protected by copyright, without being provided with any compensation. As a result, the appellant’s right to (intellectual) property within the scope of Directive 2004/48/EC was infringed.

---

[Top](#document1)