Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1 Appeals - Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings - Where a plea, first raised in the reply, is indissolubly linked to a plea rejected by the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118)

2 Procedure - Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings - Action for damages - Submissions changing the basis on which the Community could be held liable - May not be put forward

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 42(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2))

3 Community law - Principles - Rights of the defence - Observance of the rights of the defence during administrative procedures - Limits

4 Community law - Principles - Fundamental rights - Where the Court confirms the validity of a legislative act - Where the validity of that measure is contested at the time of its implementation - Not permissible

5 Community law - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - Limits - Amendment of the rules relating to the common organisation of certain markets - Discretion of the institutions - Extent of damage alleged by a trader - No bearing on the question whether that trader had a legitimate expectation

(Council Regulation No 404/93)

6 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Damage - Causal link - Where one of those conditions is not satisfied - Action for damages must be rejected in its entirety

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

7 Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Regulation No 404/93 - `Trader' - Defined in sufficient detail - Delegation of implementing powers to the Commission - Valid

(EC Treaty, Art. 145 (now Art. 202 EC); Council Regulation No 404/93)

Summary

1 In appeal proceedings, a plea in law is inadmissible where it is raised for the first time at the stage of the reply and is based on an element which is inescapably and directly linked to a plea in law raised by the appellant before the Court of First Instance but not put forward again on appeal. To admit such a plea would be tantamount to allowing the appellant to challenge for the first time at the stage of the reply the rejection by the Court of First Instance of a plea which it had raised before that court, whereas there was nothing to prevent it from putting forward that plea in its application to the Court of Justice.

2 In the context of an action for damages based on the Community's liability in respect of an unlawful act, a submission which changes the very basis on which the Community could be held liable - the plea of liability for a lawful legislative act - must be regarded as constituting a new plea in law which cannot be introduced in the course of proceedings. The fact that such a plea is also based on Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288 EC) does not make it any less a new plea in law.

3 In the context of a procedure for the adoption of a Community act based on an article of the Treaty, the only obligations of consultation incumbent on the Community legislature are those laid down in the article in question. No right to be heard prior to adoption of a legislative act can be deduced from the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC); nor can the case-law providing for a right to be heard in the context of certain measures of direct and individual concern to the applicants be extended to apply to the context of a Community legislative procedure culminating in the enactment of legislation involving a choice of economic policy and applying to the generality of the traders concerned.

4 Although respect for fundamental rights is an obligation not only on the Community legislature but also on the authorities responsible for implementing the legislative acts adopted, a finding by the Court of Justice that a legislative act is valid in terms of fundamental rights covers also the case of the specific and individual application of such an act, so that the validity of the act cannot therefore be called into question when it is applied in specific cases.

5 Although the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, traders are not justified in having a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained, particularly in an area such as that of the common organisation of the markets, the objective of which involves constant adjustment to reflect changes in economic circumstances. The extent of the loss alleged by a trader and attributed by that trader to the implementation of a regulation adopted in such a context cannot in any event cast doubt on a finding that the conduct of the competent authority had not given rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the parties concerned that a particular situation would be maintained or that particular measures would be adopted.

6 Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) is subject to a number of conditions relating to the illegality of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. If any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the entire action must be dismissed and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions for non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.

7 In adopting Regulation No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, the Council defined in sufficient detail the term `operator' for the purposes of that Regulation, so that it was able validly to delegate to the Commission the powers required for implementing the rules thus laid down, as it is authorised to do under Article 145 of the Treaty (now Article 202 EC).