Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:26
Date: 2001-01-31
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Limitation periods;Causal link
Procedure: Action for damages - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawful conduct of the institutions — 
Milk producers deprived of reference quantities under the additional milk levy system 
after suspending their deliveries under the non-marketing premium system — 
Producer kept out of the milk market by the rules curing the invalidity of Regulation 
No 857/84 — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC); Council 
Regulations Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 764/89) 
II - 243 
SUMMARY — CASE T-76/94 
2. Actions for damages — Limitation period •— Liability incurred on account of 
Regulation No 857/84 providing that reference quantities were not to be allocated to 
milk producers who had entered into non-marketing undertakings — Temporary 
waiver of the right to plead limitation — Scope 
(Council and Commission Communication 92/C 198/04) 
3. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Liability incurred on account of 
Regulation No 857/84 providing that reference quantities were not to be allocated to 
milk producers who had entered into non-marketing undertakings — Temporary 
waiver of the right to plead limitation — Suspensive effect on limitation period 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43) 
1. Community liability for damage suf­
fered caused to certain milk producers 
as a result of the application of Reg­
ulation No 857/84 fixing, under the 
additional milk levy system, the refer­
ence quantity for each producer on the 
basis of the production delivered dur­
ing a reference year may be established 
with regard to the producers who 
remained excluded from the market in 
milk after the entry into force of 
Regulation No 764/89, amending Reg­
ulation No 857/84, for reasons which 
may themselves be ascribed to the 
inadequate arrangement for the alloca­
tion of quotas introduced by Regula­
tion No 857/84, provided that the 
producer concerned establishes the 
causal nexus between the non-alloca­
tion of a quota pursuant to that 
regulation and the fact giving rise to 
the rejection of his request for a quota 
in the context of the application of 
Regulation No 764/89, such as, for 
instance, the sale of the holding which 
had been the subject of the non-mar­
keting undertaking entered into by the 
p r o d u c e r u n d e r R e g u l a t i o n 
No 1078/77. 
(see para. 59) 
2. The waiver of the right to plead that 
the action brought against the Com­
munity by milk producers deprived of 
reference quantities under the addi­
tional milk levy system after suspend­
ing their deliveries under the non-
marketing premium system was time-
barred (contained in the Communica­
tion of the Council and the Commis­
sion in connection with the subsequent 
adoption of Regulation No 2187/93 
providing for an offer of compensation 
for the producers concerned) was a 
unilateral act which was intended to 
limit the number of actions brought by 
encouraging producers to await the 
introduction of the flat-rate compensa­
tion scheme provided for by that Reg­
ulation. That Communication was spe­
cifically aimed at producers whose 
entitlement to compensation was not 
yet time-barred on the date on which it 
was published in the Official Journal or 
on the date on which they had already 
applied to one of the institutions. By 
the latter reference, the Council and the 
Commission were referring to produ­
cers who had applied to the institutions 
before the publication of the Commu­
nication in order to claim entitlement 
to compensation and who had been 
requested not to initiate actions for 
damages pending the adoption of the 
regulation determining flat-rate corn­
II - 244 
JANSMA v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION' 
pensation. The purpose of that refer­
ence was to protect those producers' 
entitlement to compensation. 
A producer whose letter addressed to 
the Council and the Commission was 
never followed by a reply does not 
satisfy those conditions, since they had 
not given any commitment in his 
regard. In those circumstances, that 
producer cannot rely on that Commu­
nication. 
(see paras 84-86) 
3. The effect of the undertaking by the 
institutions not to invoke, during a 
specific period, the limitation period in 
respect of an action to establish the 
Community's non-contractual liability 
brought by milk producers deprived of 
reference quantities under the addi­
tional milk levy system after suspend­
ing their deliveries under the non-
marketing premium system, in order 
to encourage the producers not to 
institute proceedings was to interrupt 
the limitation period for that time. 
Consequently, it cannot be accepted 
that, merely as a result of the produ­
cers' not bringing an action within the 
limitation period laid down in Arti­
cle 43 of the Statute of the Court of 
Justice, when that 
period expired, the limitation period 
resumed running from the beginning of 
that period, as if the undertaking by the 
institutions had not been given. 
(see paras 93-95) 
II - 245