Analysis of General Court Judgment in Case T\u2011519\/23<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h3>Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T\u2011519\/23)<\/h3>\n<h4>1. Legal Basis for the Action<\/h4>\n<p>The applicant, Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r Kft., initiated the action under <strong>Article 268 TFEU<\/strong> and the second paragraph of <strong>Article 340 TFEU<\/strong>. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused by the adoption of <em>Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019\/69<\/em>, which pertains to technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91\/477\/EEC.<\/p>\n<h4>2. Definitions under Directive 2021\/555<\/h4>\n<h3>2.1. Definition of ‘Firearm’<\/h3>\n<p>According to <strong>Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong>, a ‘firearm’ is defined as \u201cany 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.\u201d This definition explicitly excludes firearms for reasons listed in point III of Annex I to the directive.<\/p>\n<h3>2.2. Criteria for Conversion<\/h3>\n<p>An object is regarded as capable of being converted to expel a projectile by a combustible propellant if:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It has the appearance of a firearm;<\/li>\n<li>As a result of its construction or the material from which it is made, it can be converted.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>2.3. Definition of ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<h4>3. Application of Directive 2021\/555 to Implementing Directive 2019\/69<\/h4>\n<p>Under <strong>Article 26 of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong>, any reference to the repealed Council Directive 91\/477\/EEC is to be interpreted as a reference to Directive 2021\/555.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.<\/p>\n<h4>4. Classification of the Keser\u0171 Weapon<\/h4>\n<h3>4.1. Assessment as a Firearm<\/h3>\n<p>The Court determined that the Keser\u0171 weapon is a portable barreled weapon capable of expelling rubber bullets using a combustible propellant. This categorizes it as a ‘firearm’ under <strong>Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h3>4.2. Exclusion from ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’<\/h3>\n<p>The Keser\u0171 weapon does not meet the criteria for ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as defined in <strong>Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong> because:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It is designed to fire rubber bullets, not solely blanks, irritants, or pyrotechnic rounds.<\/li>\n<li>It does not fulfill the condition of being non-convertible to expel projectiles using a combustible propellant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Additionally, it is not exclusively designed for alarm or signal purposes, further excluding it from this category.<\/p>\n<h4>5. Criteria for EU Non-Contractual Liability<\/h4>\n<p>Under the second paragraph of <strong>Article 340 TFEU<\/strong>, the European Union may be held liable for non-contractual damage caused by its institutions or servants if the following conditions are met:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.<\/li>\n<li>Proof of damage suffered by the claimant.<\/li>\n<li>Existence of a direct causal link between the breach and the damage.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>All three conditions must be satisfied for liability to be established.<\/p>\n<h4>6. Court’s Analysis and Conclusion<\/h4>\n<h3>6.1. Lack of Causal Link<\/h3>\n<p>The Court found that Implementing Directive 2019\/69 does not apply to the Keser\u0171 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.<\/p>\n<h3>6.2. Classification Overrides National Jurisdiction<\/h3>\n<p>The Court emphasized that the definitive interpretation of EU law rests with the Court itself, not national courts. Hence, prior national judgments classifying the Keser\u0171 weapon differently do not influence the Court’s classification under EU directives.<\/p>\n<h3>6.3. Conclusion on Liability<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h4>7. Final Judgment<\/h4>\n<p>The General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the applicant, Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r 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.[:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[:uk] Analysis of General Court Judgment in Case T\u2011519\/23 Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T\u2011519\/23) 1. Legal Basis for the Action The applicant, Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r Kft., initiated the action under Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[42,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-important","category-eu-legislation-general-en","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=873"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1170,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873\/revisions\/1170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":873,"date":"2024-10-24T10:10:39","date_gmt":"2024-10-24T07:10:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2024\/10\/judgment-of-the-general-court-eighth-chamber-of-23-october-2024-keseru-muvek-fegyvergyar-kft-v-european-commission-non-contractual-liability-control-of-the-acquisition-and-possession-of-w\/"},"modified":"2024-10-30T16:37:03","modified_gmt":"2024-10-30T14:37:03","slug":"judgment-of-the-general-court-eighth-chamber-of-23-october-2024-keseru-muvek-fegyvergyar-kft-v-european-commission-non-contractual-liability-control-of-the-acquisition-and-possession-of-w","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2024\/10\/judgment-of-the-general-court-eighth-chamber-of-23-october-2024-keseru-muvek-fegyvergyar-kft-v-european-commission-non-contractual-liability-control-of-the-acquisition-and-possession-of-w\/","title":{"rendered":"[:uk]Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 October 2024.Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r Kft. v European Commission.Non-contractual liability \u2013 Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons \u2013 Implementing Directive (EU) 2019\/69 \u2013 Causal link \u2013 Concept of \u2018firearm\u2019 \u2013 Concept of \u2018alarm and signal weapons\u2019.Case T-519\/23.[:]"},"content":{"rendered":"

[:uk]<\/p>\n

\n
\nAnalysis of General Court Judgment in Case T\u2011519\/23<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h3>Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T\u2011519\/23)<\/h3>\n<h4>1. Legal Basis for the Action<\/h4>\n<p>The applicant, Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r Kft., initiated the action under <strong>Article 268 TFEU<\/strong> and the second paragraph of <strong>Article 340 TFEU<\/strong>. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused by the adoption of <em>Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019\/69<\/em>, which pertains to technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91\/477\/EEC.<\/p>\n<h4>2. Definitions under Directive 2021\/555<\/h4>\n<h3>2.1. Definition of ‘Firearm’<\/h3>\n<p>According to <strong>Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong>, a ‘firearm’ is defined as \u201cany 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.\u201d This definition explicitly excludes firearms for reasons listed in point III of Annex I to the directive.<\/p>\n<h3>2.2. Criteria for Conversion<\/h3>\n<p>An object is regarded as capable of being converted to expel a projectile by a combustible propellant if:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It has the appearance of a firearm;<\/li>\n<li>As a result of its construction or the material from which it is made, it can be converted.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>2.3. Definition of ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n<h4>3. Application of Directive 2021\/555 to Implementing Directive 2019\/69<\/h4>\n<p>Under <strong>Article 26 of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n<h4>4. Classification of the Keser\u0171 Weapon<\/h4>\n<h3>4.1. Assessment as a Firearm<\/h3>\n<p>The Court determined that the Keser\u0171 weapon is a portable barreled weapon capable of expelling rubber bullets using a combustible propellant. This categorizes it as a ‘firearm’ under <strong>Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h3>4.2. Exclusion from ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’<\/h3>\n<p>The Keser\u0171 weapon does not meet the criteria for ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as defined in <strong>Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021\/555<\/strong> because:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It is designed to fire rubber bullets, not solely blanks, irritants, or pyrotechnic rounds.<\/li>\n<li>It does not fulfill the condition of being non-convertible to expel projectiles using a combustible propellant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Additionally, it is not exclusively designed for alarm or signal purposes, further excluding it from this category.<\/p>\n<h4>5. Criteria for EU Non-Contractual Liability<\/h4>\n<p>Under the second paragraph of <strong>Article 340 TFEU<\/strong>, the European Union may be held liable for non-contractual damage caused by its institutions or servants if the following conditions are met:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.<\/li>\n<li>Proof of damage suffered by the claimant.<\/li>\n<li>Existence of a direct causal link between the breach and the damage.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>All three conditions must be satisfied for liability to be established.<\/p>\n<h4>6. Court’s Analysis and Conclusion<\/h4>\n<h3>6.1. Lack of Causal Link<\/h3>\n<p>The Court found that Implementing Directive 2019\/69 does not apply to the Keser\u0171 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.<\/p>\n<h3>6.2. Classification Overrides National Jurisdiction<\/h3>\n<p>The Court emphasized that the definitive interpretation of EU law rests with the Court itself, not national courts. Hence, prior national judgments classifying the Keser\u0171 weapon differently do not influence the Court’s classification under EU directives.<\/p>\n<h3>6.3. Conclusion on Liability<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h4>7. Final Judgment<\/h4>\n<p>The General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the applicant, Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r 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.[:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[:uk] Analysis of General Court Judgment in Case T\u2011519\/23 Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T\u2011519\/23) 1. Legal Basis for the Action The applicant, Keser\u0171 M\u0171vek Fegyvergy\u00e1r Kft., initiated the action under Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[42,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-important","category-eu-legislation-general-en","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=873"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1170,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/873\/revisions\/1170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}