Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2006:252
Date: 2006-09-13
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Food aid;External relations;Processed fruit and vegetables
Concepts: Damage for which compensation is payable;Causal link
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) 2. Non-contractual liability – Damage (Art. 288, second para., EC) 1. For the Community to incur non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, a series of conditions must be met, namely, the conduct of which the institutions are accused must have been unlawful, the damage must be real and a causal connection must exist between that conduct and the damage in question. Since those three conditions for the incurring of liability are cumulative, failure to meet one of them is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed. There is a causal link for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC where there is a direct link of cause and effect between the error committed by the institution concerned and the injury pleaded, the burden of proof being on the applicant. The Community can be held liable only for damage which is a sufficiently direct consequence of the wrongful conduct of the institution concerned. In particular, in order to be able to exclude any liability on the part of the Community, the Court ought to ascertain whether the cause of the difficulties encountered by an applicant on the market does not indeed lie in the unlawful conduct complained of. (see paras 26-27, 37) 2. The expenses incurred by the parties for the purpose of judicial proceedings cannot, as such, be regarded as constituting damage distinct from the burden of the costs of the proceedings. Moreover, even though substantial legal work is carried out in the course of the proceedings preceding the judicial phase, it must be pointed out that by ‘proceedings’ Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure refers only to proceedings before the Court of First Instance, to the exclusion of any prior stage. Therefore, to regard such expenses as compensable damage in the context of an action for damages would be in contradiction with the irrecoverable nature of the costs incurred during the stage preceding the judicial proceedings. (see para. 69)