CELEX: 61994TJ0087
Action for damages
Non-contractual liability
Milk
Additional levy
Reference quantity
Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking
SLOM 1983 producers
Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking

.
As such, that offer does not involve, by definition, the recognition of liability in respect of each of the potentially concerned
producers.
As the Court of First Instance held, the fact that the applicant received an offer of compensation under Regulation No 2187/93
cannot constitute proof of fulfilment of the conditions necessary for establishing the liability of the Community for the
damage alleged in this case, as set out in the case-law cited in paragraph 102 of this judgment. That regulation was in the
nature of a proposal by way of settlement addressed to certain producers, acceptance of which was optional, and constituted
an alternative to judicial resolution of the dispute. In the event that a producer did not accept the offer, he retained the
right to bring an action for damages under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC (see
Gosch
v
Commission
, paragraph 69, and the case‑law there cited).
The Court of First Instance therefore held that, by rejecting the offer made to him under Regulation No 2187/93, the applicant
put himself outside the framework established by that regulation and that it therefore behoved him to establish that the conditions
necessary for the establishment of the Community’s liability were fulfilled (see, to that effect,
Gosch
v
Commission
, paragraph 70).
In those circumstances, the applicant cannot validly rely, for the purposes of these legal proceedings, on an alleged recognition
of liability on the part of the Community because of the receipt of an offer of compensation made under Regulation No 2187/93.
He can no more validly put forward the conduct of the Council and the Commission in the course of the negotiations with the
SLOM producers’ representatives, until 2000, to argue that a legitimate expectation prevents the defendants from contesting
their liability in these proceedings.
Both the offer of compensation and the abovementioned conduct took place in the context of the attempt at a collective out‑of‑court
settlement on the basis of which certain producers were offered compensation. The Court of First Instance cannot, in determining
whether the conditions for incurring the Community’s non-contractual liability are met, with regard to the given situation
of a SLOM producer, be bound, in any way whatsoever, by that collective out‑of‑court settlement.
The applicant cannot, therefore, argue that the receipt of an offer of compensation from the Netherlands authorities under
Regulation No  2187/93 entails express recognition of liability on the part of the Community and that the fact that, unlike
the applicants in the cases covered by the
Bouma, Beusmans
and
Böcker-Lensing
judgments, he received such an offer distinguishes him from those applicants and discharges him from the obligation to produce
evidence that he intended to resume milk production on the expiry of his undertaking.
It follows from all the foregoing that the applicant has not established the causal link between Regulation No 857/84 and
the damage alleged. Consequently, it must be held that the Community’s liability cannot be incurred in respect of the applicant
because of the application of Regulation No 857/84, without the necessity of reviewing whether the other conditions for such
liability are met.
Therefore, it is also unnecessary to consider whether the application in this case was made out of time.
It follows that the application must, in so far as it was brought by Mr J.C. Blom, be dismissed. The disposal of the action
in the same case must, in so far as it was brought by the applicants whose names appear in the annex, be reserved.

Costs
Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been
applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful he must, in accordance with the
forms of order sought by the Council and the Commission, be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
hereby:
1.
Dismisses the action,
in so far as it was brought by Mr J.C. Blom;
2.
Orders the applicant to pay the costs;
3.
Reserves the disposal of the action in the same case, in so far as it was brought by the applicants whose names appear in
the annex.
Vilaras
Martins Ribeiro
Jürimäe
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 May 2006.
E. Coulon

M. Vilaras
Registrar

President
ANNEX
Names of the other applicants in Case T-87/94
‑ B.A. Kokkeler, residing in Denekamp (Netherlands)
‑ H.Rossel, residing in Zutphen (Netherlands)
‑ A.J. Keurhorst, residing in Nijbroek (Netherlands)
‑ A.J. Scholten, residing in De Krim (Netherlands)
‑ G.E.J. Wilmink, residing in Ambt-Delden (Netherlands)
*
Language of the case: Dutch.