Keywords
Subject of the case
Operative part

Keywords

Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement (Arts 230 EC, 232 EC, 233 EC and 288, para. 2, EC) (see paras 39-41, 49-50)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Failure to fulfil the obligation to implement an annulling judgment (Art. 288, para. 2, EC) (see paras 57-58, 60-62)

3. Actions for damages – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Limitation period of five years (Art. 288, para. 2, EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 75, 77, 79-80)

Subject of the case

Re:

In Case T‑457/04, application, first, for annulment of the Commission's decision not to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T‑79/96, T‑260/97 and T‑117/98 [2000] ECR II‑2193), contained in the letter of 10 September 2004, secondly, for an order that the Commission give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the abovementioned judgment in Camar and Tico v Commission and Council by the financial equivalent of the value of the certificates that it has not issued and, thirdly, for an order that the Commission pay compensation for non-material loss, and in Case T‑223/05, application for an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 10 September 2004 from the Director General of the Directorate General ‘Agriculture’ refusing to give effect to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 8 June 2000, Camar and Tico v Commission and Council (Joined Cases T‑79/96, T‑260/97 and T‑117/98 [2000] ECR II‑2193);

2. For the rest, dismisses the action in Case T‑457/04 as unfounded;

3. Dismisses the action in Case T‑223/05 as inadmissible;

4. In Case T‑457/04, orders Camar Srl and the Commission each to bear half of their own costs and to pay half of the costs of the other party;

5. In Case T‑223/05, orders Camar Srl to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission's costs.