Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:74
Date: 1998-04-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: General;Causal link;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Germany

SUMMARY — CASE T-184/95 
3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Regulation imposing a trade embargo against a 
non-member country — Lawful act — Lack of unusual and special damage — Community 
liability — Not incurred 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215; Council Regulation No 2340/90) 
1. If the Community is to incur non­
contractual liability as the result of a law­
ful or unlawful act, it is necessary to 
prove that the alleged damage is real and 
the existence of a causal link between that 
act and the alleged damage. It is incum­
bent upon the applicant to produce to the 
Community judicature evidence to estab­
lish the fact of the loss which he claims to 
have suffered. 
2. Liability on the part of the Community, 
as a result of the adoption of Council 
Regulation N o 2340/90 prohibiting trade 
by the Community as regards Iraq and 
Kuwait, for damage caused by the impos­
sibility, for an undertaking established in 
a Member State, of recovering its debts 
from the Government of Iraq following 
the latter's adoption, in response to the 
embargo imposed on it, of a law freezing 
the assets of undertakings established in 
the States responsible for the embargo, 
cannot be incurred unless there is a direct 
causal link between the adoption of that 
regulation and the damage. It is for the 
undertaking seeking compensation for the 
damage to establish that the adoption of 
that law constituted, as a retaliatory 
measure, an objectively foreseeable conse­
quence, in the normal course of events, of 
the adoption of that regulation. 
In any event, there can be no causal link 
between the adoption of Regulation 
N o 2340/90 and the damage concerned 
since the trade embargo against Iraq was 
imposed by a United Nations Security 
Council resolution. Whilst it is true that, 
under Article 25 of the United Nations 
Charter, only the Members of the United 
Nations are required to accept and carry 
out the decisions of the Security Council 
and were required, in that capacity, to 
take all necessary measures to give effect 
to the trade embargo imposed by it, the 
fact remains that those Members of the 
United Nations Organisation which were 
also Member States of the Community 
were able to take action to that effect 
only under the Treaty, since any measure 
of common commercial policy, such as 
the imposition of a trade embargo, falls, 
by virtue of Article 113 of the Treaty, 
within the exclusive competence of the 
Community. 
Regulation N o 2340/90 was adopted on 
the basis of those considerations in order 
to ensure uniform implementation, 
throughout the Community, of the mea­
sures concerning trade with Iraq and 
Kuwait decided upon by the United 
Nations Security Council. The damage 
allegedly resulting from the counter-
measures adopted by the Iraqi Govern­
ment can therefore be attributed not to 
II - 668 
DORSCH CONSULT ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
the adoption of Regulation N o 2340/90 
but only to the United Nations Security 
Council resolution which imposed the 
embargo. 
3. In the event of the principle of Commu­
nity liability for a lawful act being recog­
nised in Community law, such liability 
can be incurred only if the damage 
alleged, if deemed to constitute a 'still 
subsisting injury', affects a particular 
circle of economic operators in a dispro­
portionate manner by comparison with 
others (special damage) and exceeds the 
limits of the economic risks inherent in 
operating in the sector concerned 
(unusual damage), without the legislative 
measure that gave rise to the alleged dam­
age being justified by a general economic 
interest. 
A Community undertaking whose claims 
against the government of a non-member 
country have become irrecoverable fol­
lowing the imposition by a Community 
regulation of a trade embargo against that 
country cannot be regarded as having suf­
fered special damage where not only its 
claims were affected but also those of all 
other Community undertakings which, 
when the embargo was imposed, had not 
yet been paid. 
Furthermore, the damage resulting from 
the suspension of payments by that non-
member country cannot be regarded as 
unusual damage, falling outside the fore­
seeable risks inherent in any provision of 
services in a 'high-risk' non-member 
country. 
In any event, whilst it is true that rules 
intended, by the imposition of a trade 
embargo against a non-member country, 
to maintain international peace and secu­
rity have, by definition, effects which 
affect the freedom to pursue a trade or 
business, thereby causing harm to persons 
who are in no way responsible for the 
situation which led to the adoption of the 
sanctions, the fact nevertheless remains 
that the importance of the aims pursued 
by such rules is such as to justify negative 
consequences, even of a substantial 
nature, for some operators. Such damage 
cannot therefore render the Community 
liable. 
II - 669