Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:27
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;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for damages - inadmissible
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 who transferred his holding after the non-marketing undertaking 
expired — Breach of legitimate expectations — None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC); Council 
Regulation No 857/84, Art. 7(1» 
II - 277 
SUMMARY — CASE T-143/97 
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) 
1. Community liability for damage caused 
to certain milk producers as a result of 
the appl icat ion of Regulat ion 
No 857/84 fixing, under the additional 
milk levy system, the reference quantity 
for each producer on the basis of the 
production delivered during a reference 
year is based on breach of the legit­
imate expectation which those produ­
cers, who were encouraged by a Com­
munity measure to suspend marketing 
of milk for a limited period in the 
general interest and against payment of 
a premium, were entitled to have in the 
limited scope of their non-marketing 
undertakings. 
Accordingly a producer cannot main­
tain that the application of the require­
ment that, in order to be granted a 
special reference quantity, producers 
must be able to prove that on the date 
of making such application they still 
operate the holding in question, in 
whole or in part, in his case constitutes 
an infringement of the principle of 
protection of legitimate expectations, 
in that he could not foresee, at the time 
of transferring his holding, that such a 
condition would be imposed. That 
requirement merely establishes in rela­
tion to special reference quantities the 
principle laid down in Article 7(1) of 
Regulation No 857/84 that the refer­
ence quantity is transferred with the 
land in respect of which it was allo­
cated. 
(see paras 40, 47-48) 
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 
II - 278 
VAN DEN BERG v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
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 com­
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 65-67) 
II - 279