Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 December 1981. - Ludwigshafener Walzmühle Erling KG and others v Council and Commission of the European Communities. - Common organization of the market in cereals - Threshold price of durum wheat. - Joined cases 197 to 200, 243, 245 and 247/80.
European Court reports 1981 Page 03211
Spanish special edition Page 00867
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
1 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - AUTONOMOUS FORM OF ACTION - DIFFERENCE FROM ACTION FOR ANNULMENT
( EEC TREATY , ART . 178 AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )
2 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY ON THE GROUND THAT NO ACTION WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS
3 . NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY - CONDITIONS - LEGISLATIVE MEASURE - SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW
( EEC TREATY , SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART . 215 )
4 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - FIXING OF AGRICULTURAL PRICES - DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS
( EEC TREATY , THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ART . 40 ( 3 ))
5 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY - OBJECTIVES - RECONCILIATION THEREOF - OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS
( EEC TREATY , ART . 39 )
Summary
1 . THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY WAS ESTABLISHED AS AN AUTONOMOUS FORM OF ACTION WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE TO FULFIL WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF ACTIONS AND THE EXERCISE OF IT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE THEREOF . THAT FORM OF ACTION IS DIFFERENT FROM AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT IN THAT IT DOES NOT SEEK THE CANCELLATION OF A SPECIFIED MEASURE BUT COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS ; THE CONDITIONS FOR ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES ARE LAID DOWN WITH THAT OBJECTIVE IN MIND AND ACCORDINGLY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE FOR AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT , IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL , ANY PARTY WHO CHOOSES TO PURSUE AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES IS OBLIGED TO ESTABLISH FULFILMENT OF ALL THE CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE FULFILLED , PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY , IF THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY IS TO BE INCURRED . THE FACT THAT SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS MAY COINCIDE WITH THOSE APPLICABLE TO AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT IS NOT THEREFORE A SUFFICIENT REASON TO DESCRIBE AN ACTION BY A PARTY IN RELIANCE UPON ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 AS A MISUSE OF PROCEDURE .
2 . NO OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY MAY BE BASED ON THE APPLICANTS ' FAILURE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF A FORM OF ACTION IN THE NATIONAL COURTS WHICH WAS NOT IN FACT OPEN TO THEM .
3 . UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES TO WHICH THAT