EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0881
Case T-881/16: Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA
Case T-881/16: Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA
Case T-881/16: Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA
OJ C 46, 13.2.2017, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
13.2.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/24 |
Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA
(Case T-881/16)
(2017/C 046/27)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: HJ (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
Defendant: European Medicines Agency
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
|
— |
order the defendant to withdraw the memorandum of 22 July 2015 and, consequently, the applicant’s response of 23 July 2015, from the applicant’s personal file; |
|
— |
so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (AECE) of 21 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s claim for damages submitted on 26 November 2015 and annul the decision of the AECE dated 19 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 20 June 2016 against the abovementioned decision; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the conditions required for the European Union to be held non-contractually liable, namely that of the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct, actual harm and the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the harm alleged to have been suffered, are satisfied in the present case. According to the applicant, the documents in his personal file, which were made public and accessible to any member of staff of the European Medicines Agency for a period of time, were not processed fairly and lawfully but were processed for purposes other than those for which they were collected without that change in purpose having been expressly authorised by the applicant. The dissemination of that sensitive data consequently called into question the applicant’s integrity, causing him real and certain non-material harm. In the applicant’s opinion, that harm must be attributed in its entirety to the Agency’s wrongful conduct.