Edouard Bouma and Bernard M. J. B. Beusmans v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2004-04-29
43. By way of a preliminary remark, it should be noted that the Court of First Instance rightly pointed out in paragraph 39 of Bouma  (paragraph 38 of Beusmans ) that the Community may incur non-contractual liability only if three conditions, namely the illegality of the conduct of the Community complained of, the occurrence of actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the unlawful conduct and the harm alleged, are fulfilled. The case of producers who have given a non‑marketing undertaking in pursuance of Regulation No 1078/77 and have therefore been unable to seek allocation of a reference quantity cannot escape that rule.
50. In that regard, it should be pointed out that, in the first sentence of paragraph 13 of Spagl , cited above, the Court of Justice held that the Community legislature was able validly to set a cut-off date by reference to the expiry of the period of non‑marketing with a view to excluding from the benefit of Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, those producers who had not delivered milk during the whole or part of the reference year in question, namely 1983, for reasons unconnected with the non-marketing undertaking.
58. As regards the complaint alleging that the interpretation of the judgment in Spagl  given in Bouma and Beusmans  failed to take account of the judgment in Quiller , Mr Bouma and Mr Beusmans do not specify how that argument can show that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Spagl . That complaint is derived from a judgment which is not intended as an interpretation of the judgment in Spagl  and which does not have the force of res judicata  in relation to the present cases (see to that effect Case C-248/99 P France  v Monsanto and Commission  [2002] ECR I-1, paragraph 37).
67. In that regard, it must be remembered that in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling the need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary for the referring court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based (Joined Cases C-320/90 to C-322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo and Others  [1993] ECR I-393, paragraph 6, and Joined Cases C-421/00, C-426/00 and C-16/01 Sterbenz and Haug  [2003] ECR I-1065, paragraph 20). The information supplied in the decision making the reference thus serves to enable the Court to give useful answers (see, in particular, the order of 28 June 2000 in Case C-116/00 Laguillaumie  [2000] ECR I-4979, paragraph 14).
72. In that regard, it should be stated that the conditions that must be met in order for Mr Bouma and Mr Beusmans to be able to claim compensation in their capacity as SLOM 1983 producers can only stem from the interpretation which the Court has given to the rules on that subject. Regulation No 1639/91 amends Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, with regard to the grant of a special reference quantity, but does not stipulate the conditions under which a SLOM 1983 producer can claim compensation. Compensation under Regulation No 2187/93 remains a separate issue since the system set up by that regulation constitutes an alternative to the settlement of disputes by the courts and offers an additional means of making damage good (Joined Cases C-80/99 to C‑82/99 Flemmer and Others  [2001] ECR I-7211, paragraph 47).
114. That assessment does not constitute, save where that evidence is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice (Case C-121/01 P O’Hannrachain  v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑5539, paragraph 35).