Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:267
Date: 1998-11-25
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Limitation periods
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgmen t 
Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — 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 — Date to be 
taken into consideration — Temporary waiver of the right to plead limitation — Not an event 
which interrupted the limitation period 
(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Council Regulations 
Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 2187/93; Communication 92/C 198/04 of the Council and the Com­
mission) 
II - 4175 
SUMMARY — CASE T-222/97 
The limitation period laid down in Article 43 
of the Statute of the Court of Justice in 
respect of actions brought against the Com­
munity in matters concerning non­
contractual liability cannot begin to run 
before all the requirements governing the 
obligation to make good the damage are sat­
isfied and, in particular, in cases in which 
liability stems from a legislative measure, 
before the injurious effects of the measure 
have been produced. 
As regards the injury suffered by producers 
of milk and milk products who, following 
their entry into non-marketing or conversion 
undertakings under Regulation N o 1078/77, 
were unable by operation of Regulation N o 
857/84 to obtain a reference quantity or, 
consequently, to market any quantity of milk 
exempt from the additional levy, the limita­
tion period started to run on the date on 
which, following the expiry of their non-
marketing undertaking, the producers con­
cerned could have resumed deliveries of milk 
if they had not been refused a reference 
quantity; that is to say, in cases where the 
undertaking expired before the date on 
which Regulation N o 857/84 entered into 
force, time started to run on that date. 
Moreover, since the damage was not caused 
instantaneously but continued to be sus­
tained from day to day for a certain period 
as a result of the maintenance in force of an 
illegal measure, the time-bar under Article 43 
of the Statute applies, with respect to the 
date of the event which interrupted the limi­
tation period, to the period more than five 
years prior to that date and does not affect 
rights which arose during subsequent peri­
ods. 
So far as regards, specifically, the notion of 
an event which interrupts a limitation period, 
the waiver of the right to plead limitation — 
provided for by the Communication of the 
Council and the Commission concerning the 
subsequent adoption of Regulation N o 
2187/93 which provided for an offer of com­
pensation to the producers concerned — 
does not constitute such an event. The Com­
munication merely provided for a self-
imposed restriction of the right to plead 
limitation. The producers were able to rely 
on that waiver in the circumstances referred 
to in Regulation N o 2187/93, since it ceased 
to have effect at the end of the period 
allowed for accepting the compensation 
offer, from which time, in the absence of 
acceptance of the offer or commencement of 
proceedings, the institutions once again 
became entitled to plead limitation. 
II -4176