Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:20
Date: 1998-02-03
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Independent nature of the action for damages;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: Greece

Summary of the O r d e r 
1. Actions for damages — Independent of actions for annulment — Limits — Action seeking 
withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 178 and 215, second para.) 
2. Actions for damages — Action brought against a measure which merely confirms a decision 
adopted previously and as such has no legal effects — Inadmissible — Measure constituting a 
new decision — Criteria 
(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215, second para.) 
3. Procedure — Time-limits within which proceedings must be initiated — Mandatory — Time-
barred — Excusable error — Concept 
I I - 1 5 3 
SUMMARY — CASE T-68/96 
1. The action for damages provided for by 
Article 178 and the second paragraph of 
Article 215 of the Treaty was meant to be 
an autonomous form of action with a par­
ticular purpose to fulfil within the system 
of remedies provided for, with the result 
that, in principle, the inadmissibility of an 
action for annulment cannot entail the 
inadmissibility of a claim for damages for 
alleged loss. 
However, although a party may take 
action by means of a claim for compensa­
tion without being obliged by any provi­
sion of law to seek the annulment of the 
illegal measure which causes him damage, 
he may not by those means circumvent 
the inadmissibility of an application 
which concerns the same instance of ille­
gality and which has the same financial 
end in view. The inadmissibility of a 
claim for annulment thus renders a claim 
for compensation inadmissible where the 
action seeking compensation is actually 
aimed at securing withdrawal of an indi­
vidual decision which has become defini­
tive, or, in other words, of a measure or 
decision capable of being the subject of 
an action for annulment brought by a 
natural or legal person and against which 
an action has not been brought within the 
specified period. 
Consequently, an action for damages 
brought by a trader who has failed within 
the specified period to seek annulment of 
a decision granting him Community 
financial aid which he considers to be 
inadequate and seeking that the institu­
tion be ordered to pay him additional aid 
is inadmissible, since the causal connec­
tion between the factors constituting the 
unlawful conduct for which the applicant 
criticises the institution and the alleged 
damage is thus connected to the illegality 
of the actual decision which has become 
definitive. 
2. An action for damages seeking compensa­
tion for damage caused by the unlawful­
ness of a measure adopted by an institu­
tion is inadmissible where that measure 
has no legal effect. Such is the case with 
regard to the refusal by an institution to 
review a decision adopted previously 
•where it simply confirms that decision. 
However, the position is different where 
that refusal amounts to a decision clearly 
altering the applicant's legal position 
compared 'with that resulting from the 
earlier decision because it is based on a 
new factor capable of having mandatory 
legal effects such as to affect the appli­
cant's interests. 
3. Time-limits for initiating proceedings, 
which are a matter of public policy, are 
not subject to the discretion either of the 
Court or of the parties, and the concept 
of excusable error, which may permit a 
derogation from them, must be strictly 
construed and can concern only excep­
tional circumstances in which, in particu­
lar, the conduct of the institution con­
cerned has been, either alone or to a 
decisive extent, such as to give rise to a 
pardonable confusion in the mind of a 
party acting in good faith and exercising 
all the diligence required of a normally 
experienced trader. 
II - 154