Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:22
Date: 2013-01-17
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Food aid;External relations
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 January 2013 Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation — Disputes relating to the adjudication of services to supply agricultural products free of charge — Actions seeking compensation for the loss resulting from errors committed by the intervention agency in the execution of its contractual obligations to pay for the supply and the release of the financial guarantee provided by the successful tenderer — Jurisdiction of the Court — Arbitration clause (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulations Nos 2802/98 and 111/1999, Arts 10, 12(2) and 16; Commission Regulation No 1799/1999, Art. 1) Article 16 of Regulation No 111/1999 laying down general rules for the application of Regulation No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, as amended by Regulation No 1125/1999, must be understood as conferring on the Court of Justice jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated to receive the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to the Russian Federation makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular actions for compensation in respect of damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions. Although the supply provided for in those regulations, and by Regulation No 1799/1999 on the supply of beef to Russia, is implemented by a contract concluded between the Commission and the successful tenderer, the clause set out in Article 16 of Regulation No 111/1999 forms an integral part of the supply contract and must be regarded as an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 272 TFEU. The Court may, in principle, hear and determine only claims arising from a contract which contains the arbitration clause or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract. Payment of the supply and release of the financial security constitute contractual obligations. They are set out respectively in Articles 10 and 12(2) of Regulation No 111/1999 and have become an integral part of the disputed contract pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation No 1799/1999, under which the supply is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 111/1999. Consequently, the claims seeking compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the delay in performing those two contractual obligations must be regarded as arising from the disputed contract, which contains the arbitration clause, or as being directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract. Furthermore, for purposes of the proper administration of justice it is essential not to have a multiplicity of courts having jurisdiction in respect of one single contract, particularly on the basis of the contractual obligation at issue, and to prevent conflicting decisions. It follows that Article 16 of Regulation No 111/1999 must be understood as conferring on the Court of Justice jurisdiction to rule on actions for compensation in respect of damage suffered as a result of alleged delays in performance of those obligations. (see paras 28-33, 35, operative part)