Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:154
Date: 2004-05-25
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Wine
Concepts: Proceedings relating to a contract;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law
Procedure: Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself (order in Case T-56/92 Koelman v Commission [1993] ECR II-1267, paragraph 21, and the judgment in Case T-195/95 Guérin Automobiles v Commission [1997] ECR II-679, paragraph 20). 59 In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct, the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (Case T-387/94 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-961, paragraph 107). 60 In this case, it is clear from the consideration of the first plea that the Court of First Instance does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the allegation that the statement of reasons in the letter of 11 November 1996 containing the Commission’s refusal to accept the amendment of the contract proposed by Palma is inadequate. In the context of the present plea, it must be held that the applicant’s criticism of the Commission comes down to a supposed infringement of the obligation to state reasons in the letter of 11 November 1996, for which the Community cannot in any event incur liability (see, to that effect, Case 106/81 Kind v Council and Commission [1982] ECR 2885, paragraph 14, and Case C-76/01 P Eurocoton and Others v Council [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 98). 61 In the application the applicant claims to have suffered damage that it estimates at ITL 22 billion (EUR 11 382 051.78). However, it is clear that the application does not contain any indication of why the applicant believes that there is a causal link between the inadequate statement of reasons in the letter of 11 November 1996 and the damage that it claims to have suffered. At the stage of the application, the applicant merely claims that the supposed damage is the direct and obvious consequence of the letter of 11 November 1996. 62 It follows that the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure have not been satisfied. 63 In the light of all the foregoing, the application must be dismissed as inadmissible, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas and arguments put forward by the Commission in support of the plea of inadmissibility of the application. Costs 64 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 and the defendant has applied for costs, the applicant must be ordered to bear all the costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible; 2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs. Pirrung Meij Forwood Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 May 2004. H. Jung J. Pirrung Registrar President 1 – Language of the case: Italian.