Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:38
Date: 2004-02-10
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Food aid;External relations
Concepts: Food aid;Proceedings relating to a contract;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law
Procedure: Action for damages - successful;Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: France

summary of the pleas relating to the alternative claim, in accordance with the requirements of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. 172. In that regard, it points out, in each of the two cases, that the application puts a precise figure on the damage suffered, being the outstanding balance on the invoices sent to the relevant intervention agency. 173. Each application identifies the conduct for which the Commission is criticised as resulting from the defective conception and drafting of the general conditions for the supply concerned and from the Commission's shortcomings in organising and supervising the work of the other parties connected with the supply, namely the intervention agencies and storage firms. 174. Each application establishes the existence of a causal link between the damage and the conduct complained of, stating that the Commission's intervention and supervision would have enabled the refusals of the relevant storage firm and intervention agency to be overcome. 175. It also states, in each of the cases, that, contrary to what the Commission maintains, the various parts of the claims are sufficiently substantiated to satisfy the requirements of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. Findings of the Court 176. It has repeatedly been held that, in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution on the basis of the Community's non-contractual liability must set out the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and 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, and Case T-195/00 Travelex Global and Financial Services and Interpayment Services v Commission [2003] ECR I-1677, paragraph 27). 177. In Cases T-215/01 and T-220/01, the application identifies the conduct alleged against the Commission as the defective planning and organisation of the supply, in that that institution did not provide for the possible failings, shortcomings, and/or lack of goodwill of the storage firms and intervention agencies. 178. Furthermore, each application identifies the damage suffered as being the additional costs incurred in connection with the supply of transport for the goods concerned. 179. As regards the causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged harm, it must be stated, in each of the two cases, that the application remains silent. Contrary to what the applicant claims (see paragraph 174 above), neither of the applications states that the causal link results from the fact that the Commission's intervention and supervision would have enabled the refusals of the relevant storage firm and intervention agency to be overcome. In any event, even if the wording of each of the applications could be interpreted as containing such a statement, the statement cannot be regarded as establishing the existence of a causal link between the conduct complained of and the damage as actually alleged. 180. In those circumstances, it must be held that, as regards the alternative claims, based on Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, neither of the applications satisfies the requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The claims brought in the alternative in Cases T-215/01 and T-220/01 must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 181. 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. Under Article 87(3), the Court may order that the costs be shared or that each party bear its own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads. 182. In Case T-215/01, since the action has been partially successful, the Court considers it fair, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to order the applicant to bear one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant. 183. In Case T-220/01, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay all the costs, as applied for by the Commission. 184. In Case T-221/01, the application has, admittedly, been upheld. However, it should be remembered that the applicant withdrew part of its action in so far as it referred to payment of invoice BRU 413 1828 in the sum of EUR 23 115.49. The Court accordingly considers it fair, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to order the applicant to bear one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the applicant. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. In Case T-215/01, orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 7 194.24 and the sum of USD 23 072.89, both together with default interest from 16 May 2001 until payment has been made in full. The interest rate to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations that is applicable during the period concerned, plus two percentage points; 2. Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-215/01; 3. Orders the applicant to bear in Case T-215/01 one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant; 4. Dismisses the application in Case T-220/01; 5. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs in Case T-220/01; 6. In Case T-221/01, orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of USD 25 761.11, together with default interest from 3 August 2001 until payment has been made in full. The interest rate to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations that is applicable during the period concerned, plus two percentage points; 7. Orders the applicant to bear in Case T-221/01 one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the applicant. Forwood Pirrung Meij Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 February 2004. H. Jung N.J. Forwood Registrar President Table of contents Legislative context II - 2 Provisions relevant to Cases T-215/01, T-220/01 and T-221/01 II - 2 Other provisions relevant to Cases T-215/01 and T-221/01 II - 4 Other provisions relevant to Case T-220/01 II - 5 The facts II - 5 Case T-215/01 II - 5 Case T-220/01 II - 7 Case T-221/01 II - 8 Procedure II - 10 Forms of order sought II - 11 The main claims brought under Article 238 EC II - 12 Admissibility II - 12 Arguments of the parties II - 12 - The plea of inadmissibility alleging that there was no contractual relationship between the parties II - 12 - The plea of inadmissibility alleging that the applications do not satisfy the requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure II - 14 Findings of the Court II - 15 - The plea of inadmissibility alleging that there was no contractual relationship between the parties II - 15 - The plea of inadmissibility alleging that the applications do not satisfy the requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure II - 16 Substance II - 17 Arguments of the parties II - 17 Findings of the Court II - 23 - Case T-215/01 II - 23 - Case T-220/01 II - 26 - Case T-221/01 II - 28 Conclusion with regard to the main claims brought under Article 238 EC II - 29 The alternative claims brought under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC in Cases T-215/01 and T-220/01 II - 30 Admissibility II - 30 Arguments of the parties II - 30 Findings of the Court II - 31 Costs II - 32 1: Language of the case: French.