CELEX: C2006/261/23
Language: en
Date: 2006-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-344/06 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2006 by J. C. Blom against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

28.10.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 261/13
            
         Appeal brought on 8 August 2006 by J. C. Blom against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-344/06 P)
   (2006/C 261/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties
   
      Appellant): J. C. Blom (represented by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S. C. H. Molin, advocaten)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May in Case T-87/94, as rectified by the Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2006 (T-87/94 REC) and, ruling anew, uphold the appellant's claim or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs at both instances.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   First plea: the Court of First Instance infringed its obligation to state reasons by disregarding material parts of Mr Blom's pleadings at first instance.
   Second plea: The Court wrongly failed to appreciate that the Institutions have expressly and unconditionally recognised the Community's liability towards producers in the position of Mr Blom. The Court also wrongly held that he cannot derive any right from the position adopted by the Institutions, extra-judicially and before the courts, for the simple reason that he did not accept the quantity under Regulation No 2187/93. (1)
   
   The judgment under appeal should be set aside because the Court of First Instance made a serious misappraisal of the legitimate expectations which the Institutions created in the case of the 83-ers. As no further examination of the facts is called for, the Court of Justice can itself dispose of the case in the appeal. Alternatively, the case should be referred back to the Court of First Instance.
   Third plea: The Court of First Instance applied an incorrect test for assessing the causal link between the loss suffered by Mr Blom and the Community's unlawful conduct.
   The Court disregarded the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by failing to infer from Mr Blom's receipt of a specific reference quantity that, subject to proof to the contrary, he intended to resume production after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking. The Court's finding that he did not have that intention is also incomprehensible, at any rate, insufficiently reasoned, and incorrectly applies the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6).