Alessandrini Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2005-06-30
61. According to settled case‑law, the Community’s non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is subject to the satisfaction of a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the Community institution, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-258/90 and C-259/90 Pesquerias De Bermeo and Naviera Laida  v Commission [1992] ECR I‑2901, paragraph 42, and KYDEP v Council and Commission , cited above, paragraph 19).
74. In that regard, it must be stated at the outset that, according to settled case-law, it is clear from the Treaty context in which Article 211 EC must be placed and also from practical requirements that the concept of implementation must be given a wide interpretation. Since only the Commission is in a position to keep track of agricultural market trends and to act quickly when necessary, the Council may confer on it wide powers in that sphere. Consequently, the limits of those powers must be determined by reference amongst other things to the essential general aims of the market organisation in question (see Case C‑239/01 Germany  v Commission  [2003] ECR I‑10333, paragraph 54, and the case‑law cited).
75. Thus, the Court has held that, in matters relating to agriculture, the Commission is authorised to adopt all the implementing measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to such legislation or to the implementing legislation adopted by the Council (see, in particular, Case 121/83 Zuckerfabrik Franken  [1984] ECR 2039, paragraph 13; Case C‑478/93 Netherlands  v Commission [1995] ECR I‑3081, paragraph 31; Case C-356/97 Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen  [2000] ECR I-5461, paragraph 24, and Germany  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 55).
86. In that regard, it is settled case‑law that both the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession form part of the general principles of Community law. However, those principles do not constitute absolute prerogatives, but must be viewed in relation to their social function. Consequently, the exercise of the right to property and to pursue a trade or profession freely may be restricted, particularly in the context of a common organisation of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and that they do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see Case 44/79 Hauer  [1979] ECR 3727, paragraph 32; Case 265/87 Schräder [1989] ECR 2237, paragraph 15, and Case 5/88 Wachauf  [1989] ECR 2609, paragraphs 17 and 18). The compatibility of the method of combined management of tariff quotas with the requirements of the protection of the fundamental rights invoked by the appellants must be assessed in the light of those criteria.
88. With regard, first, to the right to property of importers of third-country bananas, the Court has already held that that right is not undermined by the introduction of the Community quota and the rules for its subdivision. No economic operator can claim a right to property in a market share which he held at a time before the establishment of a common organisation of a market, since such a market share constitutes only a momentary economic position exposed to the risks of changing circumstances (see Case C‑280/93 Germany  v Council [1994] ECR I‑4973, paragraph 79, and Case C‑122/95 Germany v Council  [1998] ECR I‑973, paragraph 77).
89. Nor can a trader claim that he has a vested right or even a legitimate expectation as to the maintenance of an existing situation which is capable of being altered by decisions taken by Community institutions in the exercise of their discretion (Case 52/81 Faust v Commission [1982] ECR 3745, paragraph 27; Case C‑350/88 Delacre and Others v Commission  [1990] ECR I‑395, paragraphs 33 and 34, and Case C-280/93 Germany v Council , cited above, paragraph 89). That is a fortiori the case where the existing situation has to be altered in order to comply with the obligations arising from international agreements concluded by the Community.
91. In any event, it is clear from the Court’s case‑law that restrictions on the right to import third-country bananas resulting from the opening of any tariff quota and from the machinery for its subdivision are inherent in the establishment of a common organisation of the market designed to ensure that the objectives of Article 33 EC are safeguarded and that the Community’s international obligations are complied with. Such restrictions are therefore not such as to impair improperly the freedom of traditional traders in third-country bananas to pursue their trade or business (see Case C-280/93 Germany  v Council , paragraphs 82 and 87, and Case C‑122/95 Germany  v Council , paragraph 77).