Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Tariff quota for the importation of bananas - Regulation fixing a reduction and adjustment coefficient for determining the quantity to allocate to each operator - Action brought by operators - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC, fourth para.), and Art 189, second and fourth paras (now Art. 249 EC, second and fourth paras); Commission Regulations No 1869/95, No 1561/96, No 1155/97, No 1721/98 and No 1586/1999)

2. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of individuals - No discretion for institution - Mere infringement of Community law sufficient

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288 EC, second para.))

3. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Finding of error or irregularity - Not a sufficient condition

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288 EC, second para.))

Summary

1. Actions for annulment of regulations fixing reduction and adjustment coefficients for determining the quantity to allocate to each operator of categories A and B under tariff quotas are inadmissible where brought by operators of those categories. Those regulations are measures of general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 249 EC). They apply to objective situations and have legal effect as regards categories of persons generally and in the abstract, namely all of the operators of categories A and B (in the 1993 regime) or all the traditional operators (in the 1999 regime). Those regulations are, therefore, of their nature, of general application and do not amount to decisions in the sense of the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty.

( see paras 108-110 )

2. As regards the liability of the Community for damage caused to individuals the conduct alleged against the institution must involve sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. The decisive test for finding that a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious is whether the Community institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion. Where the institution in question has only a considerably reduced or even no discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach. In particular, a finding of an error which, in analogous circumstances, an administrative authority exercising ordinary care and diligence would not have committed, will support the conclusion that the conduct of the Community institution was unlawful in such a way as to render the Community liable under Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288 EC).

In that regard, the general or individual nature of an act of an institution is not a decisive test for identifying the limits of the discretion enjoyed by that institution.

( see paras 134, 136 )

3. The finding of an error or irregularity on the part of an institution is not sufficient in itself to attract the non-contractual liability of the Community unless that error or irregularity is characterised by a lack of diligence or care. It follows that the fact that there were possible discrepancies, when the reduction/adjustment coefficients for determining the quantity of bananas to allocate to each operator of categories A and B under tariff quotas were fixed, between the figures communicated by the competent national authorities and those from Eurostat or other data concerning the quantities of bananas marketed or imported into the Community during the corresponding reference periods does not in itself constitute proof of a sufficiently serious infringement of Community law on the part of the Commission. In the light of the extensive efforts made by the Commission to reduce the extent of the apparent discrepancies in the figures, it must be considered that it acted with due care and diligence.

( see paras 144, 149 )