Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2006:383
Date: 2006-12-12
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Co-responsibility levy and additional levy on milk;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC); Council Regulations Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 764/89) The Community’s non-contractual liability in connection with the introduction in 1984 by Regulation No 857/84 of the additional levy scheme in the milk and milk products sector is incurred only in respect of those milk producers who had temporarily ceased milk production pursuant to a non-marketing undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 and resumption of which was prevented precisely because of the entry into force of the additional levy scheme. That liability is therefore not incurred in relation to producers who had not resumed marketing of milk upon the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking for reasons other than those connected with the entry into force of that scheme. It is for producers who ceased marketing milk under Regulation No 1078/77 and applied for a special reference quantity following adoption of Regulation No 764/89, which was allocated to them and then withdrawn, to prove that they intended to resume milk production on expiry of their non-marketing undertaking. Proof of such an intention is deemed to be established where those producers demonstrate that they fulfil the conditions laid down by the applicable legislation permitting them to resume milk production by applying for and retaining a special reference quantity for the purposes of resumption of the activity of milk producer. The Community may therefore presume, with regard to milk producers whose non-marketing undertakings expired after the entry into force of the additional levy scheme and who applied for a special reference quantity under Regulation No 764/89 but who did not obtain one since they did not satisfy the conditions set out in that regulation, that, failing proof to the contrary by them, they would not have been able to obtain a reference quantity if Regulation No 857/84 had provided for it, and thus they are in the same position as producers who gave an undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 who never applied for a reference quantity. Such a presumption must also apply to producers who obtained a special reference quantity under Regulation No 764/89 which was withdrawn from them on the ground that they did not meet the conditions set out therein. Therefore, the non-marketing of milk on expiry of the undertaking which such a producer gave cannot, in the absence of any proof of his intention to resume milk production, be attributed to the entry into force of the additional levy scheme. (see paras 84-88, 91)