J. C. Blom and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 61994TJ0087
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:T:2006:135
• Court: General Court (European Union)
• Date: 30 May 2006
• Procedure Type: Recurso por responsabilidad - resolución interlocutoria
• Docket Number: T-87/94

Case T-87/94

J.C. Blom and Others

v

Council of the European Union and

Commission of the European Communities

(Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Milk – Additional levy – Reference quantity – Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking – SLOM 1983 producers – Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

Summary of the Judgment

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions

(Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 857/84 and 2187/93)

The Community’s liability as regards milk producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking is incurred in respect of each producer who suffered loss because he was prevented from delivering milk by Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector. That liability is based on breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. However, that principle may be invoked against Community legislation only to the extent that the Community itself previously created a situation which could give rise to a legitimate expectation.

Therefore, producers whose undertaking expired in 1983 can validly base their actions for compensation on infringement of that principle only where they show that their reasons for not resuming milk production during the reference year are connected with the fact that they had stopped production for a certain time and that they were unable, for reasons to do with the organisation of that production, to resume production immediately. It follows that those producers must prove that they clearly manifested their intention to resume milk production upon expiry of their non‑marketing undertaking.

In that regard, the fact that the producer subsequently obtained a provisional reference quantity, which was later converted into a definitive reference quantity, does not in itself prove that upon expiry of his non-marketing undertaking he had the intention to resume milk production.

Likewise, the fact that a producer received an offer of compensation under Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade cannot constitute proof of fulfilment of the conditions necessary for establishing the liability of the Community for the damage alleged.

(see paras 103-104, 107-108, 119, 124)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

30 May 2006 (*)

(Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Milk – Additional levy – Reference quantity – Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking – SLOM 1983 producers – Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

In Case T‑87/94,

J.C. Blom, residing in Blokker (Netherlands), and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex, represented initially by H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers, and subsequently by Mme Pijnacker Hordijk,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented initially by A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, acting as Agents, and subsequently by Ms Colaert,

defendant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by T. van Rijn, acting as Agent, assisted by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer, and subsequently by Mr van Rijn, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for compensation, under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC), for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fifth Chamber),

composed of M. Vilaras, President, E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges,

Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 29 November 2005,

gives the following

Judgment

Legal context

1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds (OJ 1977 L 131, p. 1) provided for the payment of a non-marketing premium or a conversion premium to producers who undertook to cease marketing milk or milk products for a non-marketing period of five years or to cease marketing milk or milk products and to convert their dairy herds to meat production for a conversion period of four years.

2 Milk producers who entered into an undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 are commonly known as ‘SLOM producers’, the acronym originating from the Dutch expression ‘slachten en omschakelen’ (slaughter and conversion) describing their obligations under the non‑marketing or conversion scheme.

3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13) introduced, from 1 April 1984, an additional levy on quantities of milk delivered beyond a reference quantity to be determined per purchaser within a guaranteed total quantity for each Member State. The reference quantity to be exempt from the additional levy was equal to the quantity of milk or milk equivalent, either delivered by a producer or purchased by a dairy, as decided by the Member State, during the reference year, which in the case of the Netherlands was 1983.

4 The detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 were laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

5 Producers who, pursuant to an undertaking entered into under Regulation No 1078/77, delivered no milk during the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned, were excluded from the allocation of a reference quantity.

6 In its judgments in Case 120/86 Mulder [1988] ECR 2321 (‘the Mulder I judgment’) and Case 170/86 von Deetzen [1988] ECR 2355 (‘the von Deetzen judgment’) the Court ruled that Regulation No 857/84, as supplemented by Regulation No 1371/84, was invalid in so far as it did not provide for the allocation of a reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to an undertaking entered into under Regulation No 1078/77, delivered no milk during the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned.

7 Following the Mulder I and von Deetzen judgments referred to in paragraph 6 above, on 20 March 1989 the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 amending Regulation No 857/84 (OJ 1989 L 84, p. 2), which entered into force on 29 March 1989, in order that the category of producers covered by those judgments might be allocated a special reference quantity representing 60% of their production during the 12 months preceding their undertaking, given under Regulation No 1078/77, to cease marketing or to convert.

8 Producers who had entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings and who, pursuant to Regulation No 764/89, received a ‘special’ reference quantity are known as ‘SLOM I producers’.

9Article 3a(1)(b) of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, made the award of a reference quantity subject, in particular, to the condition that producers ‘establish in support of their request … that they [were] able to produce on their holding up to the reference quantity requested’.

10 The first indent of Article 3a(1) of that regulation referred to producers ‘whose period of non-marketing or conversion, pursuant to the undertaking given under Regulation … No 1078/77, expire[d] after 31 December 1983, or after 30 September 1983 in Member States where the milk collection in the months April to September is at least twice that of the months October to the March of the following year’.

11 In its judgment in Case C‑189/89 Spagl [1990] ECR I‑4539, the Court held that the first indent of Article 3a(1) of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, was invalid in so far as it excluded from the grant of a special reference quantity under that provision producers whose period of non-marketing or conversion, pursuant to an undertaking given under Regulation No 1078/77, had expired before 31 December 1983 or, in some cases, before 30 September 1983.

12 Following the judgment in Spagl, cited in paragraph 11 above, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 amending Regulation No 857/84 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35) which, by removing the conditions which the Court declared invalid and which dealt, in particular, with the point in time at which the non-marketing undertaking expired, made it possible for the producers concerned to be awarded a special reference quantity. They are known as ‘SLOM II producers’. As a sub-category of SLOM II producers, producers whose non-marketing undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 expired in 1983 are known as ‘SLOM 1983 producers’.

13 By an interim judgment in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90Mulderand Others v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061 (‘the Mulder II judgment’), the Court ruled that the Community was liable for the damage suffered by certain milk producers who had given undertakings under...