AGENT , ASSISTED BY JACQUES DELMOLY , MEMBER OF THE LEGAL SERVICE , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF MARIO CERVINO , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION , JEAN MONNET BUILDING ,
DEFENDANTS ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY , IN RESPECT OF DAMAGE ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED FOR THE SUGAR MARKETING YEARS FROM 1971 TO 1975 BY REASON OF THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE HARVESTING PERIOD IN GUADELOUPE AND MARTINIQUE AND THE FIXING OF THE INTERVENTION PRICE FOR SUGAR BY THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES ,
Grounds
1 THE APPLICATIONS ARE FOR DAMAGES IN RESPECT OF LOSS WHICH THE APPLICANTS , CANE SUGAR PRODUCERS IN THE FRENCH DEPARTMENTS OF MARTINIQUE AND GUADELOUPE , CONSIDER THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED IN RESPECT OF THE SUGAR MARKETING YEARS FROM 1971 TO 1975 BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION , FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE INTERVENTION PRICES FOR SUGAR , THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE HARVESTING AND SELLING PERIODS FOR THIS PRODUCT IN THE EUROPEAN TERRITORY ( 1 JULY TO 30 DECEMBER ) AND THE SAME PERIODS IN THE DEPARTMENTS OF GUADELOUPE AND MARTINIQUE ( 1 JANUARY TO 30 JUNE ).
ADMISSIBILITY
2/4 IN ITS REJOINDER , THE COUNCIL CONTENDS GENERALLY THAT THE REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANTS ARE INADMISSIBLE . FIRST , THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ANY REASONING OR ARGUMENTS , AND SECONDLY , HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLES 40 AND 42 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IT WAS LODGED OUT OF TIME . THEREFORE , THAT CONCLUSION MUST BE DISMISSED .
SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
5 THE APPLICANTS PUT FORWARD THREE SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM :
1 . THEY CONSIDER THAT THE REGULATIONS PREVIOUS TO COUNCIL REGULATION NO 3330/74 OF 19 DECEMBER 1974 ( OJ L 359 , P . L ) ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN SUGAR WERE MANIFESTLY UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY INFRINGED ARTICLES 39 AND 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE REGULATIONS .
2 . NEXT , THEY TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED A MANIFESTLY WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION GIVING RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS IN NOT HAVING REGARD FOR THEIR INTERESTS ' IN THAT THEY FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF GUADELOUPE AND MARTINIQUE ' .
3 . FINALLY , THEY MAINTAIN THAT EVEN ' IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND THAT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ARE GUILTY OF ANY WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION , THE APPLICANTS HAVE SUFFERED DIRECT , SPECIAL AND ABNORMAL DAMAGE ' WHICH MUST BE MADE GOOD .
6 THE PURPOSE OF THESE THREE SUBMISSIONS IS THE SAME IN THAT THEY AIM TO IMPOSE NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ON THE COMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF THE DAMAGE WHICH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION NO 1009/67/EEC OF THE