CELEX: C2007/129/03
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-100/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by É. R. and Others against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission

9.6.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/2
            
         Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by É. R. and Others against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case C-100/07 P)
   (2007/C 129/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellants: É.R, J.R, A.R, B.R, O.O, T.D, V.D, J.M.D, D.D, D.F, E.E, C.F, M.R, I.R, B.R, M.R, C.S. (represented by: F. Honnorat, lawyer)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               declare the appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare the appeal to be well founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the case to be referred back to the Court of First Instance to rule on the appellants' claims.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By their appeal, the appellants seek to have the contested judgment set aside in so far as it rejected their application as being partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.
   First, as regards the admissibility of their appeal, the appellants submit that the reasoning of the Court is contradictory and that, by holding that the action for compensation resulting from the infection and death of Mr H.E.R was brought after the expiry of the 5-year limitation period, the Court violated both Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In that connection, the appellants submit that since at the time their applications were considered they did not have epidemiological data capable of accurately pinpointing the date of on which their relatives became infected, the Court could not declare that their action was time-barred.
   Second, as regards the consideration of the substance of the case, the appellants submit that the Court also adopted contradictory reasoning and violated Article 6(1) of the convention cited above, on one hand, by basing its judgment on old reports and by failing to taken account of the most recent epidemiological data and, on the other hand, by holding that the existence of a causal link between the harm alleged and the alleged unlawful conduct by the Community institutions was not established.