Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2007:19
Date: 2007-01-11
Language of the case: German
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Non-contractual liability
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Action for damages
Origin: Germany

summary publication, paragraph 26. See also the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Corus UK v Commission, paragraph 25, and Case T‑166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3991, paragraph 160. 57 – That payment, together with repayment of the principal amount of the fine unduly paid, is required of the Commission by Article 233 EC to ensure compliance with a judgment annulling or reducing a fine imposed for infringement of Treaty competition rules. See, to that effect, Case T-48/00 Corus UK v Commission [2004] ECR II‑2325, paragraph 223, and the Order of 4 May 2005 in Case T‑86/03 Holcim (France) v Commission [2005] ECR II‑1539, paragraph 30. 58 – I think it is important in that connection to point out that in two of the best known recent attempts at codification, by experts in the field, of the principles of European law on civil liability (endeavours based on a comparative examination of the national systems and designed to prompt reflection and prepare the terrain for possible future harmonisation or unification of such laws) – that of the European Group on Tort Law (‘EGTL’) of Vienna (see http://www.egtl.org) and that of the Study Group on a European Civil Code (‘SGECC’) of Osnabrück (http://www.sgecc.net) – there is an article which provides for the availability of compensation for expenses reasonably incurred to prevent anticipated damage or to limit its seriousness. See Article 2:104 of the ‘Principles of European tort law’ produced by the EGTL (May 2005 version) and Article 6-302 of the Principles of European tort law produced by the SGECC (December 2005 version). 59 – It will be remembered that, according to Community case-law, errors of law committed by the Court of First Instance are not liable to invalidate the contested judgment if its operative part appears to be based on other grounds of law (see, to that effect, Case C‑367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I‑1719, paragraph 47; Commission v Camar and Tico, cited above, paragraph 57, and Case C‑93/02 P Bierret International v Council [2003] ECR I‑10497, paragraph 60. My observation in the text applies, however, with regard to ascertainment of the facts and appraisal of the evidence relating thereto and not to the legal classification of the facts as found by the Court of First Instance.