Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2006:708 |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Date | 09 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | C-243/05 |
| Celex Number | 62005CJ0243 |
| Procedure Type | Recurso por responsabilidad |
Case C-243/05 P
Agraz, SA and Others
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Appeal – Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products – Production aid for processed tomato products – Method of calculating the amount of the aid – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Certain loss)
Summary of the Judgment
Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage caused by an unlawful act
(Art. 288, second para., EC)
For the Community to become non-contractually liable under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, the condition relating to damage requires that the damage for which compensation is sought be actual and certain.
In that regard, the fact that the Community institution has a wide discretion in the matter concerned cannot, as such, lead automatically to the damage alleged, which is the result of unlawful conduct by that institution, being regarded as uncertain. Therefore, it is solely having regard to the particular circumstances surrounding the adoption of the measure with which the damage originated that an assessment must be made as to whether the margin of discretion enjoyed by the Community institution is such as to preclude a finding that that damage is certain in character.
It follows that, where the existence of that margin of discretion authorises the Community judicature to find that there is uncertainty with regard to the exact extent of the damage claimed, that does not permit the conclusion that the very existence of the damage is uncertain.
(see paras 27, 30, 33-34, 36)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
9 November 2006 (*)
(Appeals – Common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products – Production aid for processed tomato products – Method of calculating the amount of the aid – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Certain loss)
In Case C-243/05 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 6 June 2005,
Agraz, SA, established in Madrid (Spain),
Agrícola Conservera de Malpica, SA, established in Toledo (Spain),
Agridoro Soc. coop. arl, established in Pontenure (Italy),
Alfonso Sellitto SpA, established in Mercato San Severino (Italy),
Alimentos Españoles, Alsat, SL, established in Don Benito, (Spain),
AR Industrie Alimentari SpA, established in Angri (Italy),
Argo Food – Packaging & Innovation Co. SA, established in Serres (Greece),
Asteris SA, established in Athens (Greece),
Attianese Srl, established in Nocera Superiore (Italy),
Audecoop Distillerie Arzens – Techniques séparatives (AUDIA), established in Bram (France),
Benincasa Srl, established in Angri,
Boschi Luigi e Figli SpA, established in Fontanellato (Italy),
CAS SpA, established in Castagnaro (Italy),
Calispa SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio (Italy),
Campil – Agro Industrial do Campo do Tejo Lda, established in Cartaxo (Portugal),
Campoverde Srl, established in Nocelleto di Carinola (Italy),
Carlo Manzella & C. Sas, established in Castel San Giovanni (Italy),
Carnes y Conservas Españolas SA, established in Mérida (Spain),
CO.TRA.PO Soc. coop. arl, in liquidation, established in Adria (Italy),
Columbus Srl, established in Parma (Italy),
Compal – Companhia Produtora de Conservas Alimentares, SA, established in Almeirim (Portugal),
Conditalia Srl, established in Nocera Superiore,
Conservas El Cidacos, SA, established in Autol (Spain),
Conservas Elagón, SA, established in Coria (Spain),
Conservas Martinete, SA, established in Puebla de la Calzada (Spain),
Conservas Vegetales de Extremadura, SA, established in Villafranco del Guadiana (Spain),
Conserve Italia Soc. coop. arl, established in San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy),
Conserves France SA, established in Nîmes (France),
Conserves Guintrand SA, established in Carpentras (France),
Conservificio Cooperativo Valbiferno Soc. coop. arl, established in Guglionesi (Italy),
Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. coop. arl, established in Rivarolo del Re ed Uniti (Italy),
Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo (Copador) Soc. coop. arl, established in Collecchio (Italy),
Copais Food and Beverage Company SA, established in Nea Ionia (Greece),
Tin Industry D. Nomikos SA, established in Marousi (Greece),
Davia Srl, established in Gragnano (Italy),
De Clemente Conserve Srl, established in Fisciano (Italy),
De.Con Srl, established in Scafati (Italy),
Desco SpA, established in Terracina (Italy),
Di Leo Nobile SpA – Industria Conserve Alimentari, established in Castel San Giorgio,
Ditta Emilio Marotta, established in Sant’Antonio Abate (Italy),
E. & O. von Felten SpA, established in Fontanini (Italy),
Elais SA, established in Athens,
Emiliana Conserve Srl, established in Busseto (Italy),
Enrico Perano & Figli Spa, established in San Valentino Torio (Italy),
FIT – Fomento da Indústria do Tomate, SA, established in Águas de Moura (Portugal),
Faiella & C. Srl, established in Scafati,
Feger di Gerardo Ferraioli SpA, established in Angri,
Fratelli D’Acunzi Srl, established in Nocera Superiore,
Fruttagel Soc. coop. arl, established in Alfonsine (Italy),
Giaguaro SpA, established in Sarno (Italy),
Giulio Franzese Srl, established in Carbonara di Nola (Italy),
Greci Geremia & Figli SpA, established in Parma,
Greci – Industria Alimentare SpA, established in Parma,
Greek Canning Co. SA ‘Kyknos’, established in Nauplie (Greece),
‘Grilli Paolo & Figli Sas’ di Grilli Enzo e Togni Selvino, established in Gambettola (Italy),
Heinz Iberica, SA, established in Alfaro (Spain),
IAN – Industrias Alimentarias de Navarra, SA, established in Vilafranca (Spain),
Indústrias de Alimentação Idal, Lda, established in Benavente (Portugal),
Industrie Rolli Alimentari SpA, established in Roseto degli Abruzzi (Italy),
Italagro – Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares, SA, established in Castanheira do Ribatejo (Portugal),
La Cesenate Conserve Alimentari SpA, established in Cesena (Italy),
La Doria SpA, established in Angri,
La Dorotea di Giuseppe Alfano & C. Srl, established in Sant’Antonio Abate,
La Rosina Srl, established in Angri,
Le Quattro Stelle Srl, established in Angri,
Louis Martin Production SAS, established in Monteux (France),
Menu Srl, established in Medolla (Italy),
Mutti SpA, established in Montechiarugolo (Italy),
National Conserve Srl, established in Sant’Egidio del Monte Albino (Italy),
Nestlé España, SA, established in Miajadas (Spain),
Nuova Agricast Srl, established in Verignola (Italy),
Pancrazio SpA, established in Cava De’ Tirreni (Italy),
Pecos SpA, established in Castel San Giorgio,
Pomagro Srl, established in Fisciano (Italy),
Raffaele Viscardi Srl, established in Scafati,
Rodolfi Mansueto SpA, established in Ozzano Taro,
Salvati Mario & C. SpA, established in Mercato San Severino,
Sefa Srl, established in Nocera Superiore,
Serraiki Konservopia Oporokipeftikon Serko SA, established in Serres,
Soc. coop. arl. A.R.P. – Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini, established in Gariga di Podenzano (Italy),
Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas – Sopragol SA, established in Mora (Portugal),
Spineta SpA, established in Pontecagnano Faiano (Italy),
Star Stabilimento Alimentare SpA, established in Agrate Brianza (Italy),
Sugal Alimentos, SA, established in Azambuja (Portugal),
Sutol Indústrias Alimentares, Lda, established in Alcácer do Sal (Portugal),
Tomsil – Sociedade Industrial de Concentrado de Tomate, SA, established in Ferreira do Alentejo (Portugal),
Zanae – Nicoglou levures de boulangerie, Industrie commerce alimentaire SA, established in Thessalonica (Greece),
represented by J. L. da Cruz Vilaça, advogado, and D. Choussy, avocat,
applicants,
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, M. Nolin and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro,
Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 May 2006,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 September 2006,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By their appeal, the appellants request the Court to annul in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 2005 in Case T‑285/03 Agraz and Others v Commission ECR II‑1063 (‘the contested judgment’), by which it rejected their action seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the method adopted for calculation of the amount of production aid provided for by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July 2000 setting for the 2000/2001 marketing year the minimum price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato products (OJ 2000 L 174, p. 29), on the ground that the alleged loss was not certain and accordingly the conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability were not met.
Legal context
2 Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 29; ‘the basic regulation’) provides:
‘1. A system of production aid shall apply to the products listed in Annex I obtained from fruit and vegetables harvested in the Community.
2. Production aid shall be granted to processors who have paid producers for their raw materials a price not less than the minimum price under contracts between, on the one side, producer organisations recognised or provisionally authorised under Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, and processors on the other.
…’
3 Article 4 of the basic regulation states:
‘1. The production aid may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 17 September 2020.
...14); of 25 June 1997, Italy v Commission (C‑285/94, EU:C:1997:313, paragraph 23); of 9 November 2006, Agraz and Others v Commission (C‑243/05 P, EU:C:2006:708, paragraph 73); of 8 July 2010, Afton Chemical (C‑343/09, EU:C:2010:419, paragraph 33); and of 30 April 2019, Italy v Council (Fishi......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 25 February 2021.
...Rn. 25), vom 25. Juni 1997, Italien/Kommission (C‑285/94, EU:C:1997:313, Rn. 22 und 23), und vom 9. November 2006, Agraz u. a./Kommission (C‑243/05 P, EU:C:2006:708, Rn. 17 Urteile vom 18. Juli 2007, Industrias Químicas del Vallés/Kommission (C‑326/05 P, EU:C:2007:443, Rn. 77), vom 22. Deze......
-
Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission.
...against the institutions, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of (see Case C‑243/05 P Agraz and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I‑10833, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited there, and Arcelor, cited in paragraph 110 above, para......
-
Arcelor SA v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
...against the institutions, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of (see Case C‑243/05 P Agraz and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I‑10833, paragraph 26 and the case‑law cited therein; Case T‑333/03 Masdar (UK) v Commission [2006]......
-
Deutsche Telekom AG contra Comisión Europea.
...deve essere reale e certo, il che spetta alla parte ricorrente dimostrare (v. sentenza del 9 novembre 2006, Agraz e a./Commissione, C‑243/05 P, EU:C:2006:708, punto 27 e giurisprudenza ivi citata). Spetta a quest’ultima apportare prove concludenti sia dell’esistenza sia della portata del da......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 17 September 2020.
...14); of 25 June 1997, Italy v Commission (C‑285/94, EU:C:1997:313, paragraph 23); of 9 November 2006, Agraz and Others v Commission (C‑243/05 P, EU:C:2006:708, paragraph 73); of 8 July 2010, Afton Chemical (C‑343/09, EU:C:2010:419, paragraph 33); and of 30 April 2019, Italy v Council (Fishi......
-
MyTravel Group plc v Commission of the European Communities.
...T‑285/03, Rec. p. II‑1063, point 40, non remis en cause sur pourvoi par arrêt de la Cour du 9 novembre 2006, Agraz e.a./Commission, C‑243/05 P, Rec. p. I‑10833). Ce caractère protecteur de l’obligation de diligence à l’égard des particuliers, lequel impose à l’institution compétente, lorsqu......
-
Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission.
...against the institutions, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of (see Case C‑243/05 P Agraz and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I‑10833, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited there, and Arcelor, cited in paragraph 110 above, para......