Order — ECLI:EU:T:1997:122
Date: 1997-07-18
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Food aid;External relations;Oils and fats
Concepts: General;Proceedings relating to a contract
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Order 
Procedure — Action f or damages and f or annulment of a refusal to pay compensation — Failure 
by the Commission to perform its obligations towards successful tenderers for the supply of prod­
ucts as food aid — Contractual basis — Arbitration clause — None — No jurisdiction on the part 
of the Community judicature 
(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 178, 181 and 183) 
I I -1331 
SUMMARY — CASE T-44/96 
In the context of a dispute between the 
Commission and the successful tenderer for 
a supply of food aid to non-member coun­
tries, a claim for damages against the Com­
mission, on the ground that it failed in its 
duty to ensure that the goods were collected 
by the carrier designated by it within the 
time-limit laid down in the Community leg­
islation and agreed upon between the suc­
cessful tenderer and the Commission, is 
brought on the basis of a contract. Supplies 
of food aid are made on the basis of con­
tracts entered into between the Commission 
and the successful tenderers, so that any 
liability which the Community could incur 
as a result of the organization of the supplies 
in question is also of a contractual nature. 
Consequently, in the absence of an arbitra­
tion clause within the meaning of Article 181 
of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance 
clearly lacks jurisdiction to rule on what is in 
fact an action for compensation arising out 
of a contract, when an action for damages 
based on Article 178 of the Treaty is brought 
before it. Otherwise, it would be extending 
its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by 
Article 183 of the Treaty on the disputes of 
which it may take cognizance, since that 
article specifically gives the national courts 
ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which 
the Community is a party. 
To the extent that the application also seeks 
annulment of the Commission's refusal to 
compensate the successful tenderer for the 
damage it claims to have suffered as a result 
of the failure to perform the same obligation 
as that on which the claim for damages is 
based, it is also clearly inadmissible. A party 
entering into a contract with the Commis­
sion cannot unilaterally circumvent the divi­
sion of jurisdiction as between the Court of 
First Instance and the national courts by 
causing the Commission to reject its request 
for compensation and then describing that 
rejection as a decision within the meaning of 
Article 173 of the Treaty. 
II - 1332