Order — ECLI:EU:C:2002:458
Date: 2002-07-18
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (1957)
Subject matter: Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Limitation periods
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Order 
1. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Starting point 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC); EC Statute of the 
Court of Justice, Art. 43; EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44) 
I - 6565 
SUMMARY — CASE C-136/01 P 
2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Interruption — Conditions — Action 
for damages or request for measures of inquiry before a national court — Excluded 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC); EC Statute of the 
Court of Justice, Arts 43 and 46, first para.; EAEC Statute of the Court of justice, Arts 
44 and 47, first para.) 
1. It is apparent from the second para­
graph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now 
the second paragraph of Article 288 
EC) and from Article 44 of the EAEC 
Statute of the Court of Justice, the 
latter provision being worded in the 
same terms as Article 43 of the EC 
Statute of the Court of Justice, that 
non-contractual liability on the part of 
the Community and the assertion of the 
right to compensation for damage 
suffered are subject to a number of 
conditions relating to the existence of 
an unlawful act on the part of the 
Community institutions, actual dam­
age and a causal link between them. It 
follows that the period of limitation 
which applies to proceedings in matters 
arising from non-contractual liability 
cannot begin to run before all the 
requirements governing an obligation 
to make reparation are satisfied and in 
particular before the damage to be 
made good has materialised. 
(see paras 29-30) 
2. Quite apart from the fact that 
Article 43 of the EC Statute and 
Article 44 of the EAEC Statute of the 
Court of Justice refer only to inter­
ruption of the limitation period, it is 
clear from the very wording of those 
provisions that they require, in the two 
situations for which they provide, an 
application before the Court of Justice 
or the Court of First Instance, before 
which those provisions are applicable 
by virtue of the first paragraph of 
Article 46 and the first paragraph of 
Article 47 of those Statutes respect­
ively. By contrast, neither a similar 
action brought before a national court, 
namely an application for damages, 
nor a request for measures of inquiry, 
such as a request for the appointment 
of an expert, nor even a request for 
protective measures brought before a 
national court can have that effect of 
interruption. 
(see para. 56) 
I - 6566