Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:17
Date: 2010-01-20
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Spain

summary of the above-cited impact study) or from the statement of reasons in Regulation No 637/2008 (see recitals 16 to 24 in its preamble) that the insertion of those provisions was made following the taking into consideration, pursuant to the judgment in Spain v Council, of all the relevant factors and circumstances. – The causal link between the infringement of the principle of proportionality which vitiated the contested regulation and the legal and financial advisers’ charges 68 As regards losses consisting in the ‘costs of legal and financial advice services’ and, as the case may be, provisions for depreciation and plant and equipment, the applicants have failed to state to what extent those charges for advice incurred ‘following the adoption of the contested regulation’, assuming that they were actually incurred, were directly linked with the unlawful act found by the Court in Spain v Council. 69 Indeed, in reply to a question put by the Court at the hearing, the applicants stated that the charges in question related in fact to charges incurred for the purposes of these proceedings. However, the costs incurred in relation to judicial review proceedings before the Community judicature must be regarded as covered by the decisions given on costs, under the specific procedural rules applicable to that type of expenditure, in the decisions bringing the proceedings to an end and on conclusion of the special proceedings provided for in cases where the amount of the costs is challenged. Those proceedings exclude any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non‑contractual liability of the Community, including those incurred by parties who, having been unsuccessful, have had to pay the costs. 70 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the applicants have not been able to establish that the losses they suffered are connected, by reason of a relationship of cause and effect, with the infringement of the principle of proportionality which vitiated the contested regulation. 71 Therefore, the actions must be dismissed as unfounded, without there being any need to examine whether the other conditions required for establishing the Community’s non-contractual liability are satisfied in the present case. Costs 72 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. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful and the Council and Commission have applied for costs, the applicants must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council and Commission. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Joins Cases T‑252/07, T‑271/07 and T‑272/07 for the purposes of judgment; 2. Dismisses the actions; 3. Orders Sungro, SA, Eurosemillas, SA, and Surcotton, SA to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and severally, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Commission. Martins Ribeiro Papasavvas Wahl Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 January 2010. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Spanish.