Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:27
Date: 2002-02-07
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Limitation periods;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawful conduct of the institutions — 
Milk producers deprived of reference quantities under the additional levy scheme 
following their suspension of deliveries under non-marketing premium arrange­
ments — Refusal of a specific reference quantity resulting from an autonomous 
II-441 
SUMMARY — CASE T-261/94 
decision of national authorities — Decision based on considerations which are 
different from those relating to producers who have taken over a holding by succession 
after expiry of a non-marketing undertaking entered into by their predecessor — 
Liability not incurred 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC); Council 
Regulations Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 764/89) 
2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Starting point — Liability on account 
of Regulation No 857/84 resulting in a reference quantity not being allocated to milk 
producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Date to be taken into 
consideration 
(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215 (now Arts 235 EC and 288 EC); EC Statute of the Court 
of Justice, Art. 43; Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84) 
3. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Interruption — Conditions — Bring­
ing of proceedings before the Community judicature or lodging of a preliminary 
application with the relevant institution 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC) and Art. 175 (now 
Art. 232 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Council Regulations Nos 
1078/77, 857/84 and 2187/93; Communication of the Council and Commission 92/C 
198/04) 
1. The Community's liability for losses 
resulting from the application of Regu­
lation No 857/84, which fixes the 
reference quantity to be allocated 
under the scheme for additional levies 
on milk to each producer on the basis 
of production delivered during a refer­
ence year, cannot be incurred with 
respect to losses sustained after the 
date of the entry into force of Regu­
lation No 764/89 amending Regu­
lation No 857/84, since the refusal of 
a specific reference quantity is the 
result of an autonomous decision by 
the national authorities, based on con­
siderations which are, to a very large 
extent, different from those mentioned 
by the Court of Justice in its judgment 
in Case C-314/89 Rauh in relation to 
producers who have taken over a 
holding by succession or by a similar 
transaction after expiry of a non-mar­
keting undertaking entered into under 
Regulation No 1078/77 by the prede­
cessor in title. 
(see para. 57) 
2. The limitation period for actions 
against the Community on grounds of 
non-contractual liability, laid down by 
Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of 
Justice, cannot start to run before all 
the requirements governing the obli­
gation to make good the damage are 
II - 442 
SCHULTE v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
satisfied and, in particular, in cases 
where liability stems from a legislative 
measure, before the injurious effects of 
the measure have been produced. 
In the case of damage suffered by a 
producer of milk or milk products 
who, on account of a non-marketing 
or conversion undertaking entered into 
under Regulation No 1078/77, could 
not, in the light of Regulation 
No 857/84, be allocated a reference 
quantity, and was consequently unable 
to market any quantity of milk exempt 
from the additional levy, the require­
ments for bringing an action for com­
pensation against the Community were 
fulfilled and the limitation period 
started to run on the date on which 
Regulation No 857/84 became appli­
cable to that producer. Since, more­
over, that damage was not caused 
instantaneously but recurred on a daily 
basis, entitlement to compensation 
relates to consecutive periods com­
mencing on each day on which it was 
not possible to market milk. Since it 
has been held that the damage which 
the applicant, a producer who took 
over a holding by succession after 
expiry of the non-marketing undertak­
ing entered into by his predecessor, 
claims to have sustained after the date 
of the entry into force of Regulation 
No 764/89 amending Regulation 
No 857/84 is no longer linked to the 
illegality of the Community legislation 
and therefore attributable to the Com­
munity, the limitation period expired 
five years after that date unless it was 
interrupted before that date. 
(see paras 59-62) 
3. Under Article 43 of the Statute of the 
Court of Justice, the limitation period 
is interrupted only if proceedings are 
instituted before the Community judi­
cature or if, prior to such proceedings, 
an application is made to the relevant 
Community institution, provided 
always that, in the latter case, inter­
ruption only occurs if the application is 
followed by proceedings instituted 
within the time-limits determined by 
reference to Article 173 of the Treaty 
(now, after amendment, Article 230 
EC) or Article 175 of the Treaty (now 
Article 232 EC), depending on the 
case. The reference in the last sentence 
of Article 43 of the Statute to 
Articles 173 and 175 of the Treaty 
has the effect of rendering applicable, 
as far as interruption of the limitation 
period is concerned, the rules for 
calculating the time-limits laid clown 
by those provisions. 
With respect to damage suffered by 
producers of milk or milk products 
who, on account of non-marketing or 
conversion undertakings entered into 
II - 443 
SUMMARY — CASE T-261/94 
under Regulation No 1078/77, could 
not, in the light of Regulation 
No 857/84, be allocated a reference 
quantity, and were consequently 
unable to market any quantity of milk 
exempt from the additional levy, the 
waiver of the right to plead limitation 
contained in the Communication of the 
Council and the Commission relating 
to the subsequent adoption of Regu­
lation No 2187/93 providing for an 
offer of compensation to the producers 
concerned is a unilateral act which was 
intended to limit the number of actions 
brought by encouraging producers to 
await the introduction of the flat-rate 
compensation scheme provided for by 
that regulation. Having regard to its 
purpose, that waiver ceased to have 
effect at the end of the period allowed 
for accepting the compensation offer 
made in accordance with that regu­
lation or upon the explicit rejection of 
that offer, if it took place before the 
expiry of that period. Consequently, 
the institutions once again became 
entitled, from that time onwards, to 
plead limitation. 
When a producer has received a com­
pensation offer under Regulation 
No 2187/93, he may enjoy the benefit 
of the waiver of the right to plead 
limitation contained in the Communi­
cation of the Council and the Commis­
sion only if he has instituted proceed­
ings for compensation within two 
months following the expiry of the 
period allowed for accepting the com­
pensation offer or if that offer is 
explicitly rejected before the expiry of 
that period. However, if that producer 
sent an application for compensation 
to the institutions on a date prior to 
that communication, and if that appli­
cation was made within the period laid 
down by the last sentence of Article 43 
of the Statute of the Court of Justice for 
instituting proceedings, the limitation 
period is interrupted on the day on 
which the application for compen­
sation was made. In that case, the 
undertaking given by the institutions 
results in suspension of that period for 
as long as the waiver referred to above 
produces effects. 
(see paras 63, 66-69) 
II - 444