Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:22
Date: 1998-02-04
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: General;Independent nature of the action for damages
Procedure: Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Examination of the 
legality of an act adopted by national authorities containing findings of fact which are con­
tested — Excluded 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2187/93) 
2. Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Application for compensation brought against the 
Community pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty —Jurisdiction of 
the Community judicature — Application for compensation for damage caused by the 
national authorities — Jurisdiction of the national courts 
(EC Treaty, Art. 178 and Art. 215, second para.) 
II - 195 
SUMMARY — CASE T-93/95 
3. Actions for damages — Independent of actions for annulment — Action seeking withdrawal 
of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 178) 
1. Where, in proceedings for annulment 
brought under the fourth paragraph of 
Article 173 of the Treaty, the applicant 
contests a refusal by national authorities 
to make him an offer of compensation 
pursuant to Regulation N o 2187/93 pro­
viding for an offer of compensation to 
certain producers of milk and milk prod­
ucts temporarily prevented from carrying 
on their trade, asserting that the contested 
act results from an error of fact commit­
ted in an inspection carried out on his 
holding by those authorities, the claim for 
annulment is in substance directed against 
the findings made during that inspection. 
It therefore seeks to call in question the 
validity of a decision taken by the 
national bodies responsible for imple­
menting certain measures within the 
framework of the common agricultural 
policy. Such acts are subject to review by 
the national courts, and the Court of First 
Instance does not, therefore, have juris­
diction to review their legality. 
2. The combined provisions of Article 178 
and of the second paragraph of Article 
215 of the Treaty confer jurisdiction on 
the Community judicature to award com­
pensation only for damage caused by the 
Community institutions or by their ser­
vants in the performance of their duties. 
Thus, damage caused by national authori­
ties cannot give rise to liability on the 
part of the Community and falls solely 
within the jurisdiction of the national 
courts, which will order compensation 
for such damage where appropriate. 
Consequently, the conditions which must 
be satisfied for the matter to be brought 
before the Court of First Instance under 
those provisions are not fulfilled where 
the event giving rise to the loss for which 
the applicant claims reparation is an act 
adopted by the national authorities in the 
exercise of their own powers. 
3. Even though an application for annul­
ment and a claim for damages, as respec­
tively provided for by Articles 173 and 
178 of the Treaty, constitute two indepen­
dent forms of action, and although the 
inadmissibility of an application for 
annulment does not in principle render 
inadmissible a claim for damages for the 
injury allegedly caused by the contested 
act, the fact that a claim for annulment is 
held to be inadmissible renders the claim 
for damages inadmissible •where the 
action for damages is in fact aimed at 
securing the withdrawal of an individual 
decision and would, if upheld, have the 
effect of nullifying the legal effects of that 
decision. 
I I -196