[:uk]
Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T‑519/23)
1. Legal Basis for the Action
The applicant, Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft., initiated the action under Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused by the adoption of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69, which pertains to technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91/477/EEC.
2. Definitions under Directive 2021/555
2.1. Definition of ‘Firearm’
According to Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021/555, a ‘firearm’ is defined as “any portable barreled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant.” This definition explicitly excludes firearms for reasons listed in point III of Annex I to the directive.
2.2. Criteria for Conversion
An object is regarded as capable of being converted to expel a projectile by a combustible propellant if:
- It has the appearance of a firearm;
- As a result of its construction or the material from which it is made, it can be converted.
2.3. Definition of ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’
Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021/555 defines ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as devices equipped with a cartridge holder designed to fire only blanks, irritants, other active substances, or pyrotechnic signalling rounds. Additionally, these devices must not be convertible to expel a shot, bullet, or projectile using a combustible propellant.
3. Application of Directive 2021/555 to Implementing Directive 2019/69
Under Article 26 of Directive 2021/555, any reference to the repealed Council Directive 91/477/EEC is to be interpreted as a reference to Directive 2021/555. Therefore, Implementing Directive 2019/69 is assessed in the context of the updated legal framework established by Directive 2021/555.
4. Classification of the Keserű Weapon
4.1. Assessment as a Firearm
The Court determined that the Keserű weapon is a portable barreled weapon capable of expelling rubber bullets using a combustible propellant. This categorizes it as a ‘firearm’ under Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021/555.
4.2. Exclusion from ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’
The Keserű weapon does not meet the criteria for ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as defined in Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021/555 because:
- It is designed to fire rubber bullets, not solely blanks, irritants, or pyrotechnic rounds.
- It does not fulfill the condition of being non-convertible to expel projectiles using a combustible propellant.
Additionally, it is not exclusively designed for alarm or signal purposes, further excluding it from this category.
5. Criteria for EU Non-Contractual Liability
Under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the European Union may be held liable for non-contractual damage caused by its institutions or servants if the following conditions are met:
- Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
- Proof of damage suffered by the claimant.
- Existence of a direct causal link between the breach and the damage.
All three conditions must be satisfied for liability to be established.
6. Court’s Analysis and Conclusion
6.1. Lack of Causal Link
The Court found that Implementing Directive 2019/69 does not apply to the Keserű weapon as it does not qualify as an ‘alarm and signal weapon.’ Therefore, the directive could not have caused the alleged damage, failing the causal link requirement.
6.2. Classification Overrides National Jurisdiction
The Court emphasized that the definitive interpretation of EU law rests with the Court itself, not national courts. Hence, prior national judgments classifying the Keserű weapon differently do not influence the Court’s classification under EU directives.
6.3. Conclusion on Liability
Given the absence of a causal link between the directive and the alleged damage, the Court concluded that the European Union cannot be held liable under the claims presented by the applicant.
7. Final Judgment
The General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the applicant, Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft., to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union, as represented by the European Commission. The French Republic, as an intervenor, was ordered to bear its own costs.[:]
