Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - CAPACITY TO BRING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO COMPENSATION - ACTION BROUGHT BY ASSIGNEE - ADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY , ART . 178 AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 )

2 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - SUBJECT-MATTER - COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE ABOLITION OF REFUNDS - PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY BASED ON THE FAILURE TO BRING AN ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE REFUNDS IN THE NATIONAL COURTS - REJECTION OF THAT PLEA

( EEC TREATY , ART . 178 AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )

3 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS DUE UNDER COMMUNITY LAW - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY , ART . 178 AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )

4 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - INDEPENDENT NATURE - ACTION FOR ANNULMENT - ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - DIFFERENT SUBJECT-MATTER

( EEC TREATY , ARTS . 173 AND 175 AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )

5 . NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY - LEGISLATIVE MEASURE INVOLVING CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY - LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY - CONDITIONS - SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL - UNUSUAL AND SPECIAL NATURE OF DAMAGE

( EEC TREATY , SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )

6 . NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY - DAMAGE - ASSESSMENT - CRITERIA - DAMAGE PASSED ON TO OTHER TRADERS - TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

( EEC TREATY , SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )

7 . NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY - DAMAGE - COMPENSATION - CLAIM FOR INTEREST - ADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY , SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )

Summary

1 . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ABUSE , THERE IS NO REASON TO PREVENT A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FROM BEING CLAIMED AND ENFORCED IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY BY AN ASSIGNEE ACTION BY SUBROGATION FROM ANOTHER TRADER .

2 . AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY , SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE ABOLITION OF REFUNDS , CANNOT BE MET BY A PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY BASED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE SAID REFUNDS AGAINST THE COMPETENT NATIONAL BODIES IN A NATIONAL COURT , SINCE SUCH AN ACTION CANNOT BE CLASSED AS A CLAIM FOR THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE COMMUNITY RULES AND SINCE IT IS MOREOVER SETTLED THAT A NATIONAL COURT COULD NOT HAVE UPHELD AN ACTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH SUMS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW AUTHORIZING THE NATIONAL BODIES TO PAY THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED .

3 . AN ACTION FOR PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY .

4 . THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY PLEADED AGAINST AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND BASED ON AN ARGUMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REAL OBJECT OF THE ACTION COULD BE ACHIEVED ONLY BY THE ADOPTION OF A NEW REGULATION AND THAT , SINCE THE APPLICANT MAY NOT PURSUE SUCH AN OBJECTIVE BY MEANS OF THE ACTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLES 173 AND 175 AND THE EEC TREATY , IT CANNOT DO SO BY MEANS OF AN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 EITHER . IN FACT , AS THE LATTER ACTION WAS SET UP AS AN INDEPENDENT REMEDY , THE COURT MAY CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES , IF IT IS WELL FOUNDED , WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY FOR THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED TO ADOPT NEW LEGISLATIVE MEASURES .

5 . THE FINDINGS THAT A LEGAL SITUATION RESULTING FROM A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE OF THE COMMUNITY IS UNLAWFUL IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO GIVE RISE TO THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY . WHEN SUCH A MEASURE IMPLIES CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY IT IS FURTHER NECESSARY THAT IT BE VITIATED BY A SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL .

IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS IN WHICH ONE OF THE CHIEF FEATURES IS THE EXERCISE OF A WIDE DISCRETION ESSENTIAL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY THE COMMUNITY MAY INCUR LIABILITY ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES , NAMELY WHERE THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED MANIFESTLY AND GRAVELY DISREGARDED THE LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS .

SUCH MAY BE THE CASE IF THAT INSTITUTION HAS ACTED CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY EMBODIED IN PARTICULAR IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY , IF THE DISREGARD OF THAT PRINCIPLE AFFECTED A LIMITED AND CLEARLY DEFINED GROUP OF COMMERCIAL OPERATORS , IF THE DAMAGE THUS CAUSED GOES BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THE ECONOMIC RISKS INHERENT IN THE ACTIVITIES IN THE SECTOR CONCERNED AND FINALLY IF THE SAID INSTITUTION ENDED THE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT EXISTING PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION .

6 . IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES , IN ORDER TO DECIDE UPON THE EXISTENCE OR EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT , IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT , IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE , THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO PASS ON IN HIS SELLING PRICES THE DISADVANTAGES FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS COMPENSATION .

7 . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PRINCIPLES COMMON TO THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES , TO WHICH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY REFERS , THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES A CLAIM FOR INTEREST IS GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE .