Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1996:126
Date: 1996-09-24
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Food aid;External relations
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons;Independent nature of the action for damages
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for damages - interlocutory judgment
Origin: France

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. In the present case, contrary to the arguments of the defendant, the Court finds that that requirement has been fulfilled. The fact of the matter is that the objections raised by the Commission relate not to the procedural admissibility of the plea but to its merits. 114. Consequently, the allegation of inadmissibility must be rejected. 115. It is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty, which is an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review. 116. In the present case, it is quite clear from the decision that the Commission took the view that the amended contracts submitted to it could not be approved since they did not fulfil the conditions laid down by the provisions in force, inasmuch as they had not been concluded in conformity with the principle of free competition and the new prices were not in accordance with the market price. 117. Indeed, the applicants do not deny that they understood that line of reasoning, as is attested by the arguments put forward by them in support of their first plea. 118. It must be concluded, therefore, that the decision is in conformity with the requirements laid down by Article 190 of the Treaty. 119. On the other hand, it is not for the Court to determine, in the context of a plea alleging infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, whether a decision could have been justified on grounds other than those stated in the decision in question. That would exceed the bounds of its power to review the statement of reasons provided, as recapitulated above. 120. This plea must therefore be rejected. The claim for compensation for material damage Admissibility 121. In Case T-491/93, the Commission argues that the claim for compensation for material damage is inadmissible. The application does not explain the claim or, in particular, the nature of the damage pleaded. It does not therefore fulfil therequirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. 122. Article 44(1)(c) provides that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. In the present case, the Court finds that that requirement has been fulfilled. The Commission's objection relates not to the procedural admissibility of the plea but to the substance of the claim for compensation. 123. Consequently, the Commission's plea of inadmissibility must be rejected. Substance 124. Suffice it to recall that, in order for the Community to incur liability, a set of conditions must be fulfilled regarding the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the institution concerned, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct in question and the damage complained of (see, in particular, Case T-336/94 Efisol v Commission [1996] ECR II-1343, paragraph 30). 125. In the present case, the Court finds that the wrongful acts or omissions alleged by the applicants fall variously within the scope of some or all of the pleas put forward by them in support of their application for annulment. 126. Since those pleas have already been rejected, it follows that the applicants have not succeeded in proving any wrongful conduct on the part of the Commission. 127. In those circumstances, the application for compensation for the material damage alleged must be rejected. The claim for compensation for non-material damage 128. In Case T-485/93, the applicant claims that it has suffered non-material damage as a result of the statements made by the Director-General of DG VI in the presence of representatives of the Community grain export trade at the meeting on 13 May 1993 (see paragraph 105 above), by which he insinuated that the applicant had engaged in unlawful practices at the time of negotiation of the rider to the contract. 129. The applicant claims that the Commission should be ordered to pay one euro by way of compensation for that damage. 130. The document on which the applicant relies in order to establish wrongful conduct on the part of the Commission consists of the minutes of the meeting in question, which were drawn up by Coceral. These are not official minutes or even a document approved in some way by the Commission. 131. Consequently, it cannot be said that the actual content of the discussions, as reported in that document and contested by the Commission, has been established. 132. In those circumstances, the application in Case T-485/93 for compensation for non-material damage must be rejected. 133. It follows that the applications must be dismissed in their entirety. Costs 134. Under Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, the Court may order that the costs be shared or that each party bear its own costs. In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission must be ordered to pay all the costs incurred up to delivery of the judgments of the Court of Justice of 5 May 1998. Each of the applicants must bear its own costs incurred following delivery of those judgments and the applicants must be ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs incurred by the Commission after that delivery. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Joins Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 for the purposes of the judgment; 2. Dismisses the actions; 3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by each of the applicants up until delivery of the judgments of the Court of Justice of 5 May 1998. Each applicant is to bear its own costs incurred following delivery of those judgments and the applicants are jointly and severally to pay the costs incurred by the Commission after that delivery. Pirrung Potocki Meij Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 November 2000. H. Jung A.W.H. Meij Registrar President 1: Languages of the case: French and Dutch.