Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:184
Date: 2001-07-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Quotas - third countries;External relations;Fruit and vegetables;Commercial policy;Bananas
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany;Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Tariff quota for the importation of bananas — 
Regulation fixing a reduction and adjustment coefficient for determining the quantity 
to allocate to each operator — Action brought by operators — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC, fourth para.) 
and Art 189, second and fourth paras (now Art. 249 EC, second and fourth paras); 
Commission Regulations No 1869/95, No 1561/96, No 1155/97, No 1721/98 and 
No 1586/1999) 
II - 1975 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 AND T-225/99 
2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Sufficiently serious breach of a superior 
rule of law for the protection of individuals — No discretion for institution — Mere 
infringement of Community law sufficient 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288 EC, second para.)) 
3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Finding of error or irregularity — Not a 
sufficient condition 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288 EC, second para.)) 
1. Actions for annulment of regulations 
fixing reduction and adjustment coeffi­
cients for determining the quantity to 
allocate to each operator of categories 
A and B under tariff quotas are inad­
missible where brought by operators of 
those categories. Those regulations are 
measures of general application within 
the meaning of the second paragraph of 
Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the 
second paragraph of Article 249 EC). 
They apply to objective situations and 
have legal effect as regards categories 
of persons general ly and in the 
abstract, namely all of the operators 
of categories A and B (in the 1993 
regime) or all the traditional operators 
(in the 1999 regime). Those regulations 
are, therefore, of their nature, of gen­
eral application and do not amount to 
decisions in the sense of the fourth 
paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty. 
(see paras 108-110) 
2. As regards the liability of the Commu­
nity for damage caused to individuals 
the conduct alleged against the institu­
tion must involve sufficiently serious 
breach of a rule of law intended to 
confer rights on individuals. The deci­
sive test for finding that a breach of 
Community law is sufficiently serious 
is whether the Community institution 
concerned has manifestly and gravely 
disregarded the limits on its discretion. 
Where the institution in question has 
only a considerably reduced or even no 
discretion, the mere infringement of 
Community law may be sufficient to 
establish the existence of a sufficiently 
serious breach. In particular, a finding 
of an error which, in analogous cir­
cumstances, an administrative author­
ity exercising ordinary care and dili­
gence would not have committed, will 
support the conclusion that the con­
duct of the Community institution was 
unlawful in such a way as to render the 
Community liable under Article 215 of 
the Treaty (now Article 288 EC). 
II - 1976 
COMAFRICA AND DOLE FRESH FRUIT EUROPE v COMMISSION 
In that regard, the general or individual 
nature of an act of an institution is not 
a decisive test for identifying the limits 
of the discretion enjoyed by that insti­
tution. 
(see paras 134, 136) 
3. The finding of an error or irregularity 
on the part of an institution is not 
sufficient in itself to attract the non­
contractual liability of the Community 
unless that error or irregularity is 
characterised by a lack of diligence ol­
care. It follows that the fact that there 
were possible discrepancies, when the 
reduction/adjustment coefficients for 
determining the quantity of bananas 
to allocate to each operator of cate­
gories A and B under tariff quotas were 
fixed, between the figures communi­
cated by the competent national autho­
rities and those from Eurostat or other 
data concerning the quantities of bana­
nas marketed or imported into the 
Community during the corresponding 
reference periods does not in itself 
constitute proof of a sufficiently serious 
infringement of Community law on the 
part of the Commission. In the light of 
the extensive efforts made by the 
Commission to reduce the extent of 
the apparent discrepancies in the fig­
ures, it must be considered that it acted 
with due care and diligence. 
(see paras 144, 149) 
II - 1977