Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for damages - Action against the institution alleged to have rendered the Community liable - Whether admissible - Condition

(EC Treaty, Art. 178 and Art. 215, second para.)

2 Non-contractual liability - Damage - Reparation - Milk producers unlawfully denied reference quantities under the additional levy scheme after having suspended their deliveries in accordance with the system of non-marketing or conversion premiums - Quantification of damage - Specific to each case

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para.; Council Regulations Nos 1078/77, 857/84 and 764/89)

3 Actions for damages - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Liability arising from Regulation No 857/84 on account of the non-allocation of a reference quantity to milk producers who entered into a non-marketing or conversion undertaking - Date to be taken into consideration - Period during which damage occurred - Determination - Specific to each case

(EC Treaty, Art. 178 and Art. 215, second para.; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 43 and 46; Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84)

Summary

4 Where the liability of the Community is involved by reason of the act of one or more of its institutions, it is represented before the Community judicature by the institution or institutions which are alleged to be responsible for the matter giving rise to liability. The fact that an action is brought against the institutions and not specifically against the Community will not render the application inadmissible where it does not affect the rights of the defence.

5 The damage for which reparation may be claimed by producers of milk or milk products who, pursuant to non-marketing or conversion undertakings given under Regulation No 1078/77, were precluded by Regulation No 857/84 from receiving a reference quantity and who were unable, as a result, to market any quantity of milk exempt from additional levy is that which results from the deprivation of a reference quantity during the period between the date on which Regulation No 857/84 was applied to each producer and the date on which those producers were allocated a specific reference quantity pursuant to Regulation No 764/89.

However, where, in consequence of a forced sale, a producer has ceased to be the owner of the holding in respect of which a conversion undertaking had been entered into, and is therefore no longer entitled to a reference quantity, which is allocated in relation to a specific parcel of land, the reparable damage suffered by that producer as a result of his having been denied that reference quantity can only be the damage sustained by him up to the date of the forced sale.

6 The limitation period governing actions against the Community in matters arising from non-contractual liability, as laid down by Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 46 of that Statute, cannot start to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases where liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced.

As regards damage suffered by producers of milk or milk products who, pursuant to non-marketing or conversion undertakings given under Regulation No 1078/77, were precluded by Regulation No 857/84 from receiving a reference quantity and who were unable, as a result, to market any quantity of milk exempt from additional levy, the limitation period started to run from the day on which, following the expiry of their undertaking, those producers could have resumed milk deliveries if they had not been refused a reference quantity, that is to say, the date on which Regulation No 857/84 became applicable to them.

In that regard, the argument that the limitation period did not begin to run until the date on which Regulation No 857/84 was declared invalid is unfounded, since that argument is tantamount to making the right to bring an action for damages depend on the act which caused the damage having first been annulled or declared invalid, and ignores the fact that actions for damages under Articles 178 and 215 of the Treaty are independent of actions for annulment; the fact that they are so independent enables an action for damages to be brought without there first having been an action for annulment, and therefore secures greater protection for individuals.

As regards the period during which the damage was suffered, in cases where the damage was not caused instantaneously, but recurred on a daily basis, entitlement to compensation relates to consecutive periods commencing on each day on which marketing was not possible. However, where entitlement to a reference quantity is lost by reason of an event such as loss of a holding, there can no longer be any injury linked to the application of Regulation No 857/84 after that date and the limitation period therefore expires five years after the event in question.