CELEX: 61996TO0068
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-03 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 1998. # Dimitrios Polyvios v Commission of the European Communities. # Fisheries - Community financial aid for joint enterprise projects - Regulation No 4028/86 - Non-contractual liability - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case T-68/96.

Avis juridique important

|

61996B0068

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 1998.  -  Dimitrios Polyvios v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Fisheries - Community financial aid for joint enterprise projects - Regulation No 4028/86 - Non-contractual liability - Manifest inadmissibility.  -  Case T-68/96.  

European Court reports 1998 Page II-00153

Summary
Keywords

1 Actions for damages - Independent of actions for annulment - Limits - Action seeking withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive - Inadmissible(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 178 and 215, second para.) 2 Actions for damages - Action brought against a measure which merely confirms a decision adopted previously and as such has no legal effects - Inadmissible - Measure constituting a new decision - Criteria (EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215, second para.) 3 Procedure - Time-limits within which proceedings must be initiated - Mandatory - Time-barred - Excusable error - Concept  

Summary

4 The action for damages provided for by Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty was meant to be an autonomous form of action with a particular purpose to fulfil within the system of remedies provided for, with the result that, in principle, the inadmissibility of an action for annulment cannot entail the inadmissibility of a claim for damages for alleged loss.However, although a party may take action by means of a claim for compensation without being obliged by any provision of law to seek the annulment of the illegal measure which causes him damage, he may not by those means circumvent the inadmissibility of an application which concerns the same instance of illegality and which has the same financial end in view.  The inadmissibility of a claim for annulment thus renders a claim for compensation inadmissible where the action seeking compensation is actually aimed at securing withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive, or, in other words, of a measure or decision capable of being the subject of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person and against which an action has not been brought within the specified period. Consequently, an action for damages brought by a trader who has failed within the specified period to seek annulment of a decision granting him Community financial aid which he considers to be inadequate and seeking that the institution be ordered to pay him additional aid is inadmissible, since the causal connection between the factors constituting the unlawful conduct for which the applicant criticises the institution and the alleged damage is thus connected to the illegality of the actual decision which has become definitive. 5 An action for damages seeking compensation for damage caused by the unlawfulness of a measure adopted by an institution is inadmissible where that measure has no legal effect.  Such is the case with regard to the refusal by an institution to review a decision adopted previously where it simply confirms that decision.   However, the position is different where that refusal amounts to a decision clearly altering the applicant's legal position compared with that resulting from the earlier decision because it is based on a new factor capable of having mandatory legal effects such as to affect the applicant's interests. 6 Time-limits for initiating proceedings, which are a matter of public policy, are not subject to the discretion either of the Court or of the parties, and the concept of excusable error, which may permit a derogation from them, must be strictly construed and can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced trader.