Order — ECLI:EU:T:2000:152
Date: 2000-06-15
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Basis of liability;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Order 
1. Non-contractual liability — Scope — Acts of the Community institutions or acts of 
servants of the Community — Meaning — Whether instruments of primary Commu­
nity law are covered — Not covered — Position where damage is attributable to the 
Single European Act 
(EC Treaty, Arts 7a (now, after amendment, Art. 14 EC) and 215, second para, (now 
Art. 288, second para., EC)) 
II - 2387 
SUMMARY — CASE T-614/97 
2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative acts involving economic policy 
decisions — Sufficiently clear breach of a higher-ranking rule of law for the protection 
of individuals 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC)) 
3. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions 
4. Non-contractual liability — Breach by the Community institutions of a legal obligation 
to act — Demise of the profession of customs agent as a result of the Single European 
Act — Obligation of the institutions to act — None — Obligation of the Community 
to compensate members of the profession — None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC)) 
1. As regards non-contractual liability on 
the part of the Community, the cause of 
the damage suffered by customs agents 
resulting from the abolition of customs 
and tax frontiers between Member 
States is not attributable to the Council 
or the Commission. The direct and 
determining cause of that damage is 
neither the adoption of measures of 
secondary legislation nor the absence 
of adequate compensation and support 
measures, but Article 13 of the Single 
Act, which inserted in the EEC Treaty 
an Article 8a which later became Arti­
cle 7a (now, after amendment, Arti­
cle 14 EC); this provides in particular 
that 'the internal market shall comprise 
an area without internal frontiers'. The 
Single Act, which was adopted by the 
Member States, is not, therefore, attri­
butable to the above institutions and 
consequently cannot give rise to non­
contractual liability on the part of the 
Community. 
(see para. 19) 
2. The non-contractual liability of the 
Community for damage caused either 
by legislative measures adopted by its 
institutions or wrongful failure to 
adopt such measures, can only be 
incurred if there has been a breach of 
a higher-ranking rule of law for the 
protection of individuals. Moreover, if 
the institution has adopted the measure 
in the exercise of a broad discretion, 
the Community cannot be rendered 
liable unless the breach is clear, that is 
to say, if it is of a manifest and serious 
nature. 
(see para. 24) 
3. The right to rely on the principle of the 
protection of legitimate expectations 
II - 2388 
ADUANAS PUJOL RUBIO AND OTHERS V COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
extends to any individual who is in a 
situation in which it is apparent that 
the Community administration has led 
him to entertain reasonable expecta­
tions. On the other hand, a person may 
not plead a breach of this principle 
unless the administration has given him 
precise assurances. 
(see para. 32) 
4. Omissions by the Community institu­
tions give rise to liability on the part of 
the Community only when the institu­
tions have infringed a legal obligation 
to act under a provision of Community 
law. 
Since the termination of the activities 
of customs agents was not attributable 
to either the Council or the Commis­
sion, they were under no obligation to 
make good the damage which might 
arise as a result. In particular, there is 
no need to consider whether there is 
any general principle of law by virtue 
of which the Community would be 
obliged to compensate a person who 
has been subject to a measure expro­
priating his property or restricting his 
freedom to enjoy his right to property 
since the Community cannot be obliged 
to make good damage caused by acts 
which cannot be imputed to it. It 
follows that the Community is not 
obliged to compensate members of that 
profession. 
(see paras 21-22, 35-37) 
II - 2389