Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:228
Date: 1998-09-30
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Veterinary legislation
Concepts: General;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Causal link
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - decision unnecessary;Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

summary of the pleas in law 
on which the application is based. 
46 Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to 
prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, where appropriate, 
without any other information in support. In order to guarantee legal certainty 
II - 3857 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be 
admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars on which the action is 
founded be indicated coherently and intelligibly, if only in summary form, in the 
application itself (see Case C-347/88 Commission ν Greece [1990] ECR 1-4747, 
paragraph 28, and Case C-52/90 Commission ν Denmark [1992] ECR 1-2187, 
paragraph 17 et seq.; see also the order in CaseT-56/92 Koelman, cited above, 
paragraph 21, the judgment in Case T-387/94 Asia Motor France and Others ν 
Commission [1996] ECR 11-961, paragraph 106, the order in Case T-53/96 Syndicat 
des Producteurs de Viande Bovine and Others ν Commission [1996] ECR 11-1579, 
paragraph 21, and the judgment in Case T-l 13/96 Dubois et Fils v Council and 
Commission [1998] ECR 11-125, paragraph 29). 
47 In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for 
damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which, 
inter alia, the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant and, in particular, the 
nature and extent of that damage can be identified (order in Koelman, cited above, 
paragraphs 22 to 24; judgment in Joined Cases T-481/93 and T-484/93 Exporteurs 
in Levende Varkens and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-2941, paragraph 75). 
48 In the present case, pages 18 and 19 of the application state the various categories 
of damage suffered by the beef farmers, namely, first, actual damage resulting from 
sales of live animals for less than their production cost, at a price which the appli­
cants claim to be 40% lower than that which the farmers expected to obtain; sec­
ond, actual damage arising from the cost of keeping animals which remain unsold 
at the end of their fattening cycle; third, loss of the profits which they would 
otherwise have made on the sale of animals during the current year; and fourth, 
loss of income resulting from the persistent decline in beef consumption in the 
years to come. 
49 Although the applicants' pleadings do not definitively quantify the damage suf­
fered by each farmer, they none the less contain, in Annexes 10 and 11 to the 
application, detailed estimates of the losses allegedly sustained by the Italian beef 
II - 3858 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
industry generally, and the criteria and parameters applied in arriving at those esti­
mates are set out in those annexes. Notwithstanding the provision of those esti­
mates, the applicants stress the very great difficulties encountered by them in 
attempting correctly to evaluate and quantify the damage suffered by each farmer. 
They state that it is for that very reason that they have requested that that complex 
computation be carried out by a group of experts. 
50 In those circumstances, it must be accepted that the application, supplemented by 
the information contained in the annexes, is sufficiently precise as regards the 
nature and character of the damage pleaded, and that details of the approximate 
extent of the alleged damage have been made available both to the defendants and 
to the Court. Consequently, the defendants have been able to prepare their defence 
without any other information in support, and the Court is in a position to rule on 
the action, subject to the need arising for further details concerning the precise 
scope of the damage suffered by each of the applicants. 
51 The Council is therefore wrong in its assertion that the application does not fulfil 
the criteria of clarity and precision laid down by Article 44(1 )(c) of the Rules of 
Procedure. 
52 It follows that this objection of inadmissibility must be dismissed. 
The defendants' objection of inadmissibility alleging that Coldiretti has no legal 
interest in bringing the proceedings 
— Arguments of the parties 
53 The defendants dispute the admissibility of the claim for compensation made by 
Coldiretti. They refer to the relevant case-law, according to which an organisation 
formed for the defence of the collective interests of a fixed category of persons 
does not have the requisite standing to bring a claim for compensation for damage 
II - 3859 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
suffered by its members. The Community judicature has held that a trade or pro­
fessional association has the right to bring proceedings under Article 215 of the 
Treaty only where it is able to assert in law either a particular interest of its own 
which is distinct from that of its members or a right to compensation which has 
been assigned to it by others (Case 72/74 Union Syndicale and Others ν Council 
[1975] ECR 401, paragraphs 20 to 22; Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, cited above, 
paragraph 64; order in Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine, cited above, 
paragraph 28). The application does not show, or even imply, that Coldiretti has 
suffered damage in its own right or that it is seeking to enforce a right to compen­
sation assigned to it by its members. Coldiretti has not proved, or even main­
tained, that either of those situations obtains in the present case. Consequently, its 
application is manifestly inadmissible. 
54 The applicants acknowledge that Coldiretti is an association without legal person­
ality. Nevertheless, they contend that it has a legal interest in bringing the proceed­
ings. The fact that it lacks legal personality is not significant and does not prevent 
it in any way from constituting an entity distinct from its members, with the 
capacity to act in its own right. For that reason, Coldiretti has an interest in estab­
lishing liability on the part of the institutions and/or their officials by virtue of 
their having brought about the damage complained of in the application. 
55 It has an interest in bringing the proceedings because associations not recognised 
as having legal personality, such as itself, possess a legal status distinct from the 
personality of its members, even though — from the point of view of pecuniary 
liability — they do not have full financial autonomy. 
— Findings of the Court 
56 As the Commission has pointed out, the objection of inadmissibility at issue is not 
based on arguments concerning the legal form of the applicant or its lack of per­
sonality under Italian law but is founded on the criteria laid down by Community 
case-law with regard to the interest of a trade or professional association in bring­
ing proceedings. 
II - 3860 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
57 Such an association has the right to bring proceedings under Article 215 of the 
Treaty only where it is able to assert in law either a particular interest of its own 
which is distinct from that of its members or a right to compensation which has 
been assigned to it by others (Case 238/78 Ireks-Arkady ν Council and Commis­
sion [1979] ECR 2955, paragraph 5; Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, cited above, 
paragraphs 76 and 77; order in Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine, cited 
above, paragraphs 28 and 29). 
58 It is true, as the applicants maintained at the hearing, that Coldiretti represents the 
interests of arable and livestock farmers (Article 2 of its articles of association); 
nevertheless, only associations, and not individual farmers, can be members, since 
according to Article 7 of its articles of association, Coldiretti is a confederation 
made up of regional and provincial federations of farmers owning their own hold­
ings. Article 10 provides that its membership may also include organisations of 
agricultural operators pursuing objectives analogous to those of Coldiretti. 
59 Coldiretti has not alleged any damage to its own interests for which it is claiming 
compensation; nor does it plead any assignment of rights or any express mandate 
authorising it to bring proceedings for compensation for losses suffered by its 
member associations or by the individual farmers who are members of those asso­
ciations. 
60 It follows that it has not established that it has any interest in bringing proceedings 
in the present case. 
61 Consequently, the claims for compensation must be rejected as inadmissible in so 
far as they are made by Coldiretti. 
II - 3861 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
The Commission's objection of inadmissibility alleging that the action is based on 
a right to health protection which is enjoyed by all Community citizens 
— Arguments of the parties 
62 The Commission observes that, in invoking the need to protect the economic 
interests and health of consumers, and in pleading the damage allegedly suffered by 
'Community citizens' as a result of the BSE crisis, the applicants have brought an 
action not with a view to protecting their own interests but in the general interest 
of all their fellow European citizens, and that they are thereby implicitly claiming 
to represent those fellow citizens. In those circumstances, the applicants have con­
fused their own interests with the interests of the public at large or of consumers. 
Community law does not recognise the concept of an action brought with a view 
to protecting the general interest. 
63 The Commission further refers to the case-law concerning the inadmissibility of 
actions for compensation which contain no evidence, even of a summary nature, 
establishing the three key factors involved, namely the damage suffered (both its 
nature and its gravity), the alleged unlawful conduct of the Community institu­
tions and the existence of a causal link (Case 26/74 Roquette Frères ν Commission 
[1976] ECR 677, paragraphs 22 to 24, and CaseT-64/89 Automec ν Commission 
[1990] ECR 11-367, paragraph 73). It concludes that the action is also inadmissible 
on the ground that it does not specify the damage to health allegedly suffered by 
the applicants. 
— Findings of the Court 
64 In claiming that the applicants have brought an action in the general interests of all 
their fellow European citizens, the Commission is misinterpreting the application. 
II - 3862 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
65 It is true that the application contains a passage in which the applicants refer to 
Articles 3(o), 129 and 129a of the Treaty and point out that those provisions 
require the Community institutions to contribute towards ensuring a high level of 
health protection and consumer protection. Nevertheless, having regard to the 
context in which those statements are made, the wording of the application setting 
out the forms of order sought and the absence of any reference in the applicants' 
written pleadings to damage to human health, it is clear that the applicants are not 
claiming that the health of any person has been damaged and are not seeking com­
pensation in that regard. 
66 The objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission must therefore be 
rejected. 
Substance 
Arguments of the parties 
— Unlawful conduct on the part of the Council and the Commission 
67 The applicants maintain that the Community institutions, and the Commission in 
particular, have misused the powers and duties assigned to them by the legislation 
with a view to preventing the spread of BSE, and that they are thus liable for the 
serious disturbances which have occurred in the market in beef and veal. 
68 They observe that the fundamental task of the Community, as laid down in Article 
2 of the Treaty, takes the form of a series of specific tasks assigned to the Com­
munity by various provisions of the Treaty. 
II - 3863 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
69 The applicants observe, in particular, that: 
— according to Article 39 of the Treaty, the objectives of the common agricultural 
policy are to increase productivity, to increase the individual earnings of per­
sons engaged in agriculture, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of 
supplies and to ensure that the prices payable by consumers are reasonable; 
— under Article 129 of the Treaty, the Community is to contribute towards 
ensuring a high level of human health protection; 
— Article 129a is concerned with consumer protection. 
70 The applicants submit that although the Commission was informed, from 1989 
onwards, of the discovery of numerous outbreaks of BSE in the United Kingdom, 
and of the serious risk of transmission of the disease by live animals, the Commu­
nity institutions failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent the epidemic 
from spreading and merely took steps which subsequently proved to be inadequate 
and ineffective. 
71 More particularly, the applicants maintain that the Commission: 
— failed to exercise its supervisory powers in order to ensure that the Member 
States took the necessary steps to prevent bovine animals and pigs farmed for 
breeding, production or slaughter with a view to intra-Community trade from 
constituting a source from which infectious diseases could spread; 
— failed, in relation to completion of the internal market, to take the necessary 
action to protect the health and economic interests of consumers as regards 
intra-Community trade in foodstuffs by harmonising official controls of such 
foodstuffs and, to that end, making them more effective, pursuant to Council 
Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 
II - 3864 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
1989 L 186, p. 23), Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general 
product safety (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 24) and Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 
29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official 
control of foodstuffs (OJ 1993 L 290, p. 14); 
— failed to adopt the measures relating to protection and control which were 
needed in order to prevent the spread of diseases likely to constitute a serious 
hazard to animals or to human health, such as those referred to in Council 
Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in 
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market 
(OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13) and Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 con­
cerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community 
trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the 
internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29). 
72 In particular, the applicants complain that the Commission failed to exercise the 
following powers conferred by the abovementioned Directive 89/662: 
— the power, provided for in Article 8(1), to send a mission of inspection to carry 
out an on-the-spot check, to instruct an official veterinarian to check the facts 
and to request the Member State concerned to intensify checks; 
— the power, provided for in Articles 9(2) and 15, to send its representatives to 
the place concerned to examine the measures taken by the national authorities 
and to issue an opinion on those measures; 
— the power, provided for in Article 9(3), to take interim protective measures and 
thereafter to submit them to the Standing Veterinary Committee; 
— the power, provided for in Articles 9(4), 16(2) and (3) and 17, to adopt the nec­
essary measures, recommendations and decisions. 
II - 3865 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
73 They further argue that several of the measures and procedures adopted by the 
institutions indicate negligence on the part of those institutions. 
74 First, the abovementioned Decision 94/474 concerning certain protection measures 
relating to BSE authorised exports of fresh bovine meat from the United King­
dom, subject only to the addition of the following neutral wording to the health 
certificate: 'Fresh deboned bovine meat in the form of muscle from which the 
adherent tissues, including obvious nervous and lympathic tissues, have been 
removed'. According to the applicants, such a measure was manifestly incapable of 
stopping the epidemic from spreading. 
75 Second, the abovementioned Decision 95/287 authorised, on wholly unjustified 
grounds, exports of bovine meat originating in the United Kingdom, and even of 
meat from holdings on which one or more cases of BSE had been confirmed, sub­
ject only to the addition to the health certificate of the anodyne formula set out 
above. 
76 In support of the foregoing observations and of their allegation that the Commu­
nity is liable under Article 215 of the Treaty, the applicants rely on the conclusions 
contained in the report of the commission of inquiry set up by the European Par­
liament to look into BSE and to determine the political liability, if any, of the 
Commission and the Council in the matter. They refer, in particular, to certain pas­
sages from that report. 
77 As regards the legal nature of the liability alleged, the applicants argue that objec­
tive liability, based on wrongful conduct, has been incurred in the present case. 
They maintain that the defendants were at fault, in that they did not discharge 
their duty to take steps to limit the spread of an epidemic and to take action 
regarding the United Kingdom's continuing failure to fulfil its obligations under 
the legislation adopted to combat the disease. Since the requisite 'result' was not 
achieved in any way, and since, on the contrary, the conduct of the institutions led 
to the opposite result from that which they should have sought to achieve, they are 
II - 3866 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
clearly liable to pay compensation, without there even being any need to examine 
each of the negligent acts of the defendants for the purposes of establishing such 
liability. 
78 The Community institutions cannot shelter behind such concepts as 'legislative 
activity' and 'discretionary power', because the applicants also complain that they 
were guilty of various omissions and acts of an administrative nature and that their 
discretionary power to decide whether or not to adopt a given piece of legislation 
does not entitle them to act in an arbitrary manner. 
79 At the hearing, the applicants stated that their complaint against the Community 
institutions concerned, ultimately, the latter's failure to adopt in 1990 the measures 
which they adopted in 1996, namely a ban on sales of beef from the United King­
dom to continental Europe. 
80 The Commission refers to the legislation adopted by the Community in order to 
deal with the BSE crisis. In the light of the knowledge progressively acquired with 
regard to the epidemiology of the disease, the Commission adopted various mea­
sures from 1989 onwards in order, first, to prevent BSE from spreading to Member 
States other than the United Kingdom, where the first outbreaks had been 
recorded, and, second, to eradicate the disease. Those measures coincided with 
measures taken at the same time by the United Kingdom authorities. 
81 The Commission observes that any conclusion that it acted unlawfully must be 
preceded by an examination of the adequacy of the measures adopted from July 
1989 onwards, following publication of the SEAC report on the development of 
the disease in the United Kingdom, which established the first cases of BSE and 
which described the state of scientific knowledge on the subject. The adequacy of 
those measures must be assessed in the light of the scientific knowledge available at 
the time of their adoption. The Commission points out in that regard that, on a 
number of occasions, it requested the Scientific Veterinary Committee, and in par­
ticular the BSE Subcommittee specially set up, to discuss the matter and to give its 
opinion on various problems connected with the disease. It adds that it organised 
II - 3867 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
two international symposia on the subject in November 1990 and September 1993, 
that it participated in the organisation of an international conference held in Sep­
tember 1993 and, moreover, that it contributed to the financing of research into the 
matter. 
82 According to the Commission, to adopt, in response to the appearance of a given 
disease, restrictive measures for which there was no justification or reasonable sci­
entific basis would be incompatible with the institutions' responsibilities under 
Article 39 of the Treaty. In fact, the long-held view in scientific circles was that it 
was relatively unlikely that the disease could be transmitted to humans, and the 
Scientific Veterinary Committee had expressed a view to that effect in its opinions 
of 27 September 1989, 8 January 1990, 6 June 1990 and 17 January 1992. Moreover, 
that view was also expressed by the OIE in its report of September 1990 and by 
the World Health Organisation in a report published in 1991. 
83 It was not until 1993 that there was any detailed consideration or verification of 
the possibility of a link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans, 
and, even then, this involved only a 'working hypothesis' for which there was, at 
the time, no support in medical and scientific circles. 
84 The Commission refers in that regard to the World Health Organisation's memo­
randum of 1993 concerning the development of BSE in the United Kingdom, to 
the conclusions of the experts comprising the OIE Ad hoc Group on BSE deliv­
ered at the symposium held in Paris in September 1994, to the conclusions reached 
by the World Health Organisation at the end of a symposium on BSE held in 
Geneva from 17 to 19 May 1995 and, lastly, to the opinions of the Scientific Com­
mittee for Food of 21 September 1995 and of the Scientific Veterinary Committee 
of 7 and 20 November 1995. 
II - 3868 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
85 According to the Commission, it was as a result of new information published on 
20 March 1996 in the context of the SE AC statement that it became necessary to 
adopt, as a matter of urgency, the restrictive measures forming the subject-matter 
of Decision 96/239, inasmuch as that statement contained the first affirmation by 
scientists that the agent responsible for BSE was probably a pathogenic agent haz­
ardous to human health. 
86 It is incorrect, therefore, to assess the conduct of the Community institutions prior 
to that date on an a posteriori basis. For as long as the possible transmission of 
BSE to humans remained a mere scientific hypothesis, the Commission considered 
that the different interests involved, namely those of operators in the sector relat­
ing, in particular, to the stability of the market and those of consumers, were 
adequately reconciled by the ban on shipments from the United Kingdom of live 
bovine animals aged over six months and of an entire range of products liable to 
carry the disease. According to settled case-law, the principle of proportionality, 
which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures 
adopted by Community institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropri­
ate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the leg­
islation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, 
recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not 
be disproportionate to the aims pursued (Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 
France and Ireland ν Commission [1996] ECR I-795, paragraph 30). Consequently, 
the Commission cannot be held to have erred as regards the way in which, prior to 
20 March 1996, it assessed the risks associated with BSE in the light of contempo­
rary scientific knowledge. 
87 The Commission contends that its conduct was not illegal and that the action 
should therefore be dismissed as to its substance. 
88 The Council likewise maintains that the action for compensation is unfounded. It 
recalls the criteria which must be fulfilled in order for the Community to incur 
II - 3869 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
non-contractual liability and observes that it is for the applicants to establish that 
the Community acted illegally in response to the spread of the BSE epidemic. 
89 As to the acts adopted by the Council and the Commission in the veterinary sec­
tor, which the applicants regard as inadequate to stem the spread of BSE, the 
Council refers to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which, in 
the context of Community legislation characterised by the exercise of a wide dis­
cretionary power essential for the implementation of the common agricultural 
policy, the Community can incur liability only exceptionally, in cases in which the 
institution concerned has manifestly and seriously disregarded the limits on the 
exercise of its powers (Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt ν Council [1971] 
ECR 975, paragraph 11, and Joined Cases 116/77 and 124/77 Amylum ν Council 
and Commission [1979] ECR 3497, paragraph 13). 
90 The Council observes that it has conferred on the Commission the power to adopt 
measures to protect human and animal health, whilst reserving powers of imple­
mentation to the Member States. 
91 In addition, it points out that in the veterinary sphere its powers are shared by the 
Commission. It observes that it is apparent from the Treaty itself, in particular 
Articles 5, 145 and 155, that legislation in that field is to be implemented jointly by 
the Member States and by the Commission. It adds that it is for the Commission 
to submit proposals to it, in order to enable it to adopt specific legislation concern­
ing BSE and that, since the epidemic first manifested itself in 1986, it has never 
received any proposal from the Commission specifically designed to combat BSE. 
Consequently, it denies that the framework legislation was inadequate, since it had 
already empowered the Commission to take such measures as the latter institution 
might, in exercise of its discretionary powers, consider necessary in order to deal 
with zoonoses, including new ones, whilst reserving certain powers to the Member 
States. 
II - 3870 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
92 In the Council's view, the applicants have not shown that it adopted acts constitut­
ing a serious and manifest breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the 
individual or that it failed to discharge any obligation to act, since it has no power 
to act on its own initiative in the absence of proposals from the Commission. 
93 It therefore considers that one of the criteria for establishing liability on its part 
has not been fulfilled and, consequently, that the application for compensation 
must be rejected, without there being any need to examine the question as to the 
existence of damage or of a causal link. 
— The existence of damage and of a causal link 
94 The applicants allege that the damage to be compensated consists, first, in the loss 
arising from the sale of live animals at below the normal price as a result of the 
slump in market prices and the increased cost of keeping animals which remain 
unsold at the end of their fattening cycle and, second, in the loss of profits arising 
from lost sales during the current year and from the persistent decline in beef con­
sumption in the years to come. 
95 They request the commissioning of an experts' report with a view to the determi­
nation of the amount of damage suffered by each of the farmers, and reserve the 
right to make available to the Court and/or to such experts as may be appointed 
any documents needed for that purpose. 
96 The applicants stated at the hearing that, if the institutions had decided in 1990 to 
place a total ban on sales of bovine products from the United Kingdom, the bovine 
meat market in the other Member States would not have collapsed, since such 
measures would have immediately limited the outbreak of the infection to the 
II - 3871 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
United Kingdom and would have been interpreted by consumers as a very strong 
signal that control was being exercised by the Community institutions. Conse­
quently, the failure of those institutions to act constitutes the factor giving rise to 
the damage caused by the collapse of the market. 
97 The Commission does not deny the extent of the economic losses suffered, par­
ticularly by farmers, as a result of the BSE crisis. It considers, however, that the 
applicants have failed entirely to show that the damage suffered by them arose 
from the conduct of the Community institutions. The fall in demand for bovine 
meat which caused the alleged damage was prompted, as the Court of Justice 
acknowledged in paragraph 87 of its order in Case C-180/96 R United Kingdom v 
Commission, cited above, and as the applicants themselves tacitly admit in their 
application (p. 18), by the SEAC statement of 20 March 1996 concerning the prob­
able existence of a link between BSE and the variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. 
98 The Council does not deny that damage may have been suffered. However, it 
argues that the applicants have failed to state either the precise nature or the extent 
of the damage directly suffered by each of them, as is shown, in particular, by the 
fact that they have requested the Court to commission an experts' report. 
Findings of the Court 
99 The Community's non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 
215 of the Treaty is dependent on the fulfilment of a series of conditions as regards 
the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the Community institutions, the fact of 
damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution 
concerned and the damage complained of (see Case C-308/87 Grifoni v EAEC 
[1990] ECR I-1203, paragraph 6, Joined Cases C-258/90 and C-259/90 Pesquerías 
De Bermeo and Naviera Laida v Commission [1992] ECR 1-2901, paragraph 42, 
and Case T-168/94 Blackspur and Others v Council and Commission [1995] 
ECR II-2627, paragraph 38). 
II - 3872 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
100 In this case, it is necessary to examine, first, whether there is a causal link between 
the allegedly unlawful conduct of the Community institutions and the damage 
pleaded by the applicants. 
101 There is a causal link for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 215 of 
the Treaty where there is a direct causal nexus between the fault committed by the 
institution concerned and the injury pleaded, the burden of proof of which rests 
on the applicants (Joined Cases 9/60 and 12/60 Vloeberghs ν High Authority 
[1961] ECR 197, at 216, Joined Cases C-363/88 and C-364/88 Finsider and Others 
ν Commission [1992] ECR 1-359, paragraph 25, and Blackspur, cited above, para­
graph 40). 
102 The fault alleged by the applicants consists, in essence, in the adoption of insuf­
ficient, incorrect or inadequate legislation and measures in response to BSE. In par­
ticular, it consists in the failure to adopt in 1990 a decision of the kind taken in 
March 1996, confining United Kingdom bovine meat products wholly within that 
country or prohibiting their shipment to continental Europe. Thus, it is not only 
the institutions' persistent failure to act between 1990 and 1996 but also the inad­
equacy of the measures adopted during that period which constitute the unlawful 
conduct alleged against them. 
103 The defendants do not deny that cattle farmers on the continent suffered economic 
damage as a result of the events which occurred in March 1996. 
104 It would seem, first, that the existence of BSE amongst cattle in the United King­
dom, which was first discovered in 1986, is a phenomenon of which most people 
are aware, over 160 000 cases of the disease having been confirmed in that Member 
State since 1988, and, second, that sporadic cases of BSE have also been reported in 
France, Ireland, Portugal and Switzerland. 
II - 3873 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
105 From 1989 onwards the Community institutions adopted a series of measures in 
response to the BSE crisis (see paragraphs 4 to 13 above). However, although those 
measures were designed to prevent the spread of BSE in Member States of the 
Community other than the United Kingdom, to eradicate the disease and to elimi­
nate its harmful effects, they did not involve the total confinement of United King­
dom cattle and bovine meat products within the territory of that Member State, 
since certain live animals aged under six months born to females in which BSE was 
neither suspected nor confirmed, and certain bovine meat products, semen and 
embryos were permitted to continue to be sold on the continent until the Com­
mission adopted Decision 96/239. 
106 Despite the fact that the disease was known about, and notwithstanding the 
absence of any total ban prior to March 1996, consumer confidence in bovine meat 
remained unaffected, as is shown by the fact that there was no sharp fall in demand 
until 20 March 1996. In that regard, neither knowledge of the existence of the dis­
ease amongst cattle in the United Kingdom and awareness of its seriousness and of 
the possibility of its spreading amongst animals on the continent, nor the absence 
of any certainty as to whether or not meat sold on the continent might derive from 
contaminated animals, nor, finally, the view taken by the general public of the 
defendants' conduct in combating BSE, provoked a reaction amongst consumers 
comparable to that produced by the SEAC statement in March 1996. 
107 As the Commission rightly points out, the applicants themselves acknowledge in 
their application (p. 18) that they had no reason to anticipate any change in 
demand and that, when the fattening cycle commenced in November 1995, they 
could legitimately expect that demand for bovine meat would be at least as great as 
in the preceding year. 
107 It was not until 20 March 1996 that the probable transmissibility of the disease to 
humans was announced by SEAC, when it described ten cases of a variant of 
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease identified in persons aged under 42 and stated: 
'Although there is no direct evidence of a link, on current data and in the absence 
II - 3874 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
of any credible alternative the most likely explanation at present is that these cases 
are linked to exposure to BSE before the introduction of the [specified bovine 
offal] ban in 1989. This is cause for great concern.' 
109 The new information contained in that announcement was that a link between BSE 
and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease had ceased to be a theoretical hypothesis and had 
become a possibility. Consequently, despite the fact that BSE previously existed, it 
was that new information which significantly altered the perception among con­
sumers of the risk which that disease represented for human health (judgment in 
Case C-180/96 United Kingdom ν Commission, cited above, paragraphs 52 and 
53). 
1 1 0 Following the issue of the statement in question, the United Kingdom authorities 
adopted emergency measures including the decision to prohibit, first, the sale or 
supply of mammalian-derived meat meal and bone meal or its use in feed for any 
livestock, including poultry, horses and farmed fish, and, second, the sale of meat 
from bovine animals over 30 months old for human consumption. At the same 
time, a number of Member States and third countries took measures banning 
imports of cattle or beef and veal from the United Kingdom or, in the case of some 
third countries, from the European Union. 
1 1 1 As the applicants themselves have acknowledged, the SE AC statement and the 
measures adopted by Member States received wide media coverage within the 
Community; the nature and extent of that coverage in turn had a significant and 
direct effect on the immediate concerns of consumers. The Court notes in that 
regard that, in certain passages in Annex 8 to their application, the applicants 
themselves attribute the crisis in the industry in large measure to the alarmist way 
— described as 'irresponsible' by the applicants — in which the press and televi­
sion treated the discovery of the possible transmissibility of the disease to humans. 
Thus, on page 1 of the document entitled 'Beef and veal production in Italy: BSE 
— The current situation and future prospects', the following passage appears: 'Beef 
and veal production within the European Union and in Italy is currently experi-
II - 3875 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
encing severe difficulties, aggravated by alarmist information circulated in the press 
and on television concerning the possible transmission of BSE to humans, which 
has brought about an appreciable and unforeseen fall in consumption and which, 
in the absence of adequate counter-measures, threatens to plunge the industry into 
an irreversible crisis.' That document goes on to state, on page 4: 'The BSE factor 
may destroy the industry, given the unjustified and irresponsible alarmism of 
reports in the press and on television, which are solely concerned with stories of a 
sensational nature and which make no attempt whatever to present information 
clearly and objectively.' 
112 It is not disputed that it was from that time that the slump in the beef and veal 
market started to occur, brought about by an appreciable decline in demand. 
113 It must therefore be concluded that the fall in demand which gave rise to the dam­
age pleaded in the present case was caused by the effect which the SEAC statement 
had on public opinion, that is to say, by the concern which knowledge of the pos­
sible transmissibility of BSE to humans prompted amongst European consumers 
of beef and veal. 
1 1 4 Moreover, it was on the basis of that consideration that the Court of Justice held, 
in paragraph 87 of its order in Case C-180/96 R United Kingdom v Commission, 
that the fall in demand for beef and veal was provoked, a week before Decision 
96/239 was adopted, by the announcement on 20 March 1996, by SEAC and by 
the United Kingdom Government itself, of a likely link between BSE and the vari­
ant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. 
1 1 5 It is necessary, however, to consider whether the applicants have adduced any evi­
dence or indication of a causal link between the allegedly wrongful acts and omis­
sions of the defendants and the damage pleaded. 
II - 3876 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
116 The Court observes in that regard that the applicants have merely asserted that, if 
rigorous steps had been taken in good time, that would have had the effect of 
immediately confining the incidence of the disease to the United Kingdom and 
would have prevented the continental European market from being affected. It is 
true that it is difficult, in the circumstances of the case, to determine what would 
have happened if the Community institutions had decided in 1990 to impose a 
total ban with regard to the United Kingdom market. Nevertheless, the applicants 
have produced no evidence or indication whatever in support of their argument, 
showing that such measures could have prevented the fall in demand following the 
announcement on 20 March 1996 of the possible transmissibility of the disease to 
humans. 
117 There is nothing to show that, even if a total ban had been imposed with effect 
from 1990, there would not in any event have been a fall in the market upon the 
publication of information concerning the transmissibility of the disease to 
humans, resulting from the concern, similar to that created by the statement of 
20 March 1996, which such publication would have provoked amongst consumers. 
1 1 8 Consumer anxiety is not directly linked to imports of contaminated meat from the 
United Kingdom but to the possibility that the disease may be transmissible to 
humans. Consequently, if, in such hypothetical circumstances, it had been 
announced as early as 1990 that all necessary measures had been adopted to com­
bat the spread of the disease, it is unlikely that this could have prevented the 
arousal of grave fears amongst consumers. 
119 It should be noted in that regard that the conclusions in the SE A C statement 
which triggered the loss of consumer confidence were drawn from a study of ten 
cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease which had manifested themselves in consumers 
and that, in SEAC's view, the most likely explanation for those cases was to be 
found in exposure to the BSE agent prior to 1989, that is to say, during a period 
preceding the date on which the Community should, according to the applicants, 
have adopted the measures demanded by them. 
II - 3877 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
120 Furthermore, there were other circumstances which could have given rise to anxi­
ety amongst consumers, such as: 
— the fact that since 1988 cases of BSE had also been recorded on the continent, 
which could have made measures to contain the United Kingdom market less 
effective; 
— the possibility that, despite such a ban, beef and veal from the United Kingdom 
could have found its way to continental Europe; 
— the very long incubation period of BSE in bovine animals, lasting between five 
and ten years, which meant that animals might have contracted the disease dur­
ing that period without showing any clinical signs of infection; 
— the serious doubt which still subsists regarding the way in which animals may 
become contaminated. 
121 Lastly, it should be noted that, in its conclusions, SEAC referred in any event to 
the uncertainty concerning the number of cases which might manifest themselves 
in the future. 
122 In those circumstances, the applicants have not established that the fall in demand 
was caused by allegedly wrongful acts and omissions on the part of the defendants. 
Furthermore, they have not shown that, even if the defendants had adopted the 
measures which the applicants complain that they failed to take, cattle farmers 
would not in any event have suffered damage as a result of a fall in the market. 
123 In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that no causal link has been estab­
lished between the damage pleaded and the allegedly wrongful conduct of the 
Community institutions. 
II - 3878 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
124 Consequently, the claim for compensation must be dismissed as unfounded, with­
out there being any need to rule, first, on the question whether the other criteria 
giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, namely, the 
unlawful nature of the alleged conduct of the institutions and actual damage, were 
fulfilled in the present case or, second, on the applicants' request for the commis­
sioning of an experts' report. 
The application for annulment of Regulation N o 1357/96 
Arguments of the parties 
125 The applicants seek annulment of Regulation N o 1357/96, which provided for the 
payment to cattle farmers of additional premiums 'with a view to ensuring the 
future of the sector'. They claim that those provisions are illegal, inasmuch as they 
provide for farmers to receive additional premiums for the loss of income suffered 
by them and not for the increased costs which they have been forced to bear. Pay­
ment of those additional premiums cannot operate to deprive victims of the dam­
age of their right to receive full compensation for that damage. 
126 According to the applicants, the contested regulation is vitiated by the absence of 
an adequate statement of the reasons on which it is based, and thus infringes 
Article 190 of the Treaty. In particular, it does not indicate why the Council had 
recourse to the payment of additional premiums instead of making good the dam­
age, why the amount of the compensatory premiums was severely limited by com­
parison with the damage actually caused or, finally, why the Council omitted to 
take account of the increased costs which the farmers are now having to bear. 
127 The applicants state, nevertheless, that they are seeking annulment of that regula­
tion only in so far as it precludes them from claiming full compensation for the 
damage suffered. 
II - 3879 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
128 The Council and the Commission raise an objection of inadmissibility as regards 
the application for annulment of the regulation. They maintain that it is not of 
individual concern to the applicants other than Coldiretti. As to Coldiretti, that 
organisation has not shown that its position as a negotiator has been affected by 
the act in issue, or that it is entitled to substitute for its members who could them­
selves have brought proceedings. 
129 The Commission submits that the objective of the contested regulation is not, as 
the applicants wrongly argue, to limit the potential liability of the Community for 
its alleged delay in responding to the urgent threat to health, but to lay down 
emergency measures to support the income of farmers, thereby enabling them to 
overcome the exceptional difficulties facing the market as a result of the BSE crisis. 
It observes that that limit does not in any event reflect any desire whatever on the 
part of the Community institutions to restrict the compensation to which the 
applicants claim to be entitled. 
1 3 0 The Council likewise maintains that the objective of the regulation is clearly 
wholly unconnected with the right to bring proceedings under Article 215 of the 
Treaty. 
131 In their reply, the applicants submit that, in so far as the Council and the Com­
mission have ruled out any possibility that Regulation N o 1357/96 might affect 
their non-contractual liability, there is no need to reply to the objections of inad­
missibility which have been raised. They claim that, if the Court upholds the 
defendants' position, there will no longer be any point in dealing with the question 
of annulment of the regulation. 
132 They repeated at the hearing that, if the Court were to uphold that argument, their 
application for annulment could be deemed to have been withdrawn. 
II - 3880 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
Findings of the Court 
133 The Court finds that, both in their written pleadings and at the hearing, the Coun­
cil and the Commission confirmed that Regulation N o 1357/96 does not operate 
to limit the non-contractual liability of the Community. 
134 It is in fact clear from the wording of the first and second recitals in the preamble 
to the regulation that the objective which it pursues is not, as the applicants have 
wrongly maintained, to limit the potential liability of the Community for its 
alleged delay in responding to the urgent threat to health, but to lay down emer­
gency measures to support the income of farmers, thereby enabling them to over­
come the exceptional difficulties facing the market as a result of the BSE crisis, 
with a view to safeguarding the future of that sector. 
1 3 5 In those circumstances, it is not necessary to rule either on the admissibility or on 
the substance of the claim. It is sufficient to take formal note of the applicants' 
withdrawal of their application for annulment and to state that there is no need to 
give a decision on that application. 
Costs 
136 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be 
ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's 
pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to 
pay the costs as applied for by the defendants. 
II - 3881 
JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1998 — CASE T-149/96 
On those grounds, 
THE COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) 
hereby: 
1. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for compensation made by Confed­
erazione Nazionale Coltivatori Diretti (Coldiretti); 
2. Dismisses as unfounded the applications for compensation made by the 
other applicants (the individual farmers); 
3. Rules that there is no need to give a decision on the application for annul­
ment of Council Regulation (EC) N o 1357/96 of 8 July 1996 providing for 
additional payments to be made in 1996 with the premiums referred to in 
Regulation (EEC) N o 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in 
beef and veal and amending that regulation; 
4. Orders the applicants to pay the costs. 
Azizi Garcia-Valdecasas Jaeger 
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 September 1998. 
H. Jung 
Registrar 
J. Azizi 
President 
II - 3882 
COLDIRETTI AND OTHERS ν COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
Summary 
Facts 11-3845 
Procedure and forms of order sought II - 3853 
The claims for compensation II - 3856 
Admissibility II - 3856 
The Council's objection of inadmissibility alleging that the application is not in 
accordance with Article 44(1 )(c) of the Rules of Procedure II - 3856 
— Arguments of the parties II - 3856 
— Findings of the Court II - 3857 
The defendants' objection of inadmissibility alleging that Coldiretti has no legal 
interest in bringing the proceedings II - 3859 
— Arguments of the parties II - 3859 
— Findings of the Court II - 3860 
The Commission's objection of inadmissibility alleging that the action is based on a 
right to health protection which is enjoyed by all Community citizens II - 3862 
— Arguments of the parties II - 3862 
— Findings of the Court II - 3862 
Substance II - 3863 
Arguments of the parties II - 3863 
— Unlawful conduct on the part of the Council and the Commission II - 3863 
— The existence of damage and of a causal link II - 3871 
Findings of the Court II - 3872 
The application for annulment of Regulation N o 1357/96 II - 3879 
Arguments of the parties II - 3879 
Findings of the Court II - 3881 
Costs II - 3881 
II - 3883