EUR-Lex - 61996B0044 - EN
Avis juridique important
|
61996B0044
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 July 1997.
-
Oleifici Italiani SpA v Commission of the European Communities.
-
Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the people of Georgia and Armenia - Damage alleged by the successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the Commission - Action for annulment of the Commission's refusal to grant compensation - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Contractual origin of the Commission's obligation on which the action to establish liability is based - Absence of any arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty - Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance.
-
Case T-44/96.
European Court reports 1997 Page II-01331
Summary
Keywords
Procedure - Action for damages and for annulment of a refusal to pay compensation - Failure by the Commission to perform its obligations towards successful tenderers for the supply of products as food aid - Contractual basis - Arbitration clause - None - No jurisdiction on the part of the Community judicature(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 178, 181 and 183)
Summary
In the context of a dispute between the Commission and the successful tenderer for a supply of food aid to non-member countries, a claim for damages against the Commission, on the ground that it failed in its duty to ensure that the goods were collected by the carrier designated by it within the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation and agreed upon between the successful tenderer and the Commission, is brought on the basis of a contract. Supplies of food aid are made on the basis of contracts entered into between the Commission and the successful tenderers, so that any liability which the Community could incur as a result of the organization of the supplies in question is also of a contractual nature.Consequently, in the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance clearly lacks jurisdiction to rule on what is in fact an action for compensation arising out of a contract, when an action for damages based on Article 178 of the Treaty is brought before it.
Otherwise, it would be extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 183 of the Treaty on the disputes of which it may take cognizance, since that article specifically gives the national courts ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party. To the extent that the application also seeks annulment of the Commission's refusal to compensate the successful tenderer for the damage it claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to perform the same obligation as that on which the claim for damages is based, it is also clearly inadmissible.
A party entering into a contract with the Commission cannot unilaterally circumvent the division of jurisdiction as between the Court of First Instance and the national courts by causing the Commission to reject its request for compensation and then describing that rejection as a decision within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty.