Top      News   Profile    Topics    EU Law  Impressum          ゼミのページ



損 害 賠 償 請 求 の 訴 え の 適 法 性

 第1審裁判所への訴え、特に、ECに損害賠償の支払いを求める訴え(EC条約第235条、第288条第2項参照)の適法性について、第1審裁判所は、Chiquita 判決(Case T-19/01)において以下のように述べている。



Conformity of the application with Article 44(1)( c) of the Rules of Procedure

64

Under Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, every application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and contain a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (order of 28 April 1993 in Case T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523, paragraph 20, and judgment in Case T-113/96 Dubois et Fils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-125, paragraph 29).


65

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons why the applicant considers there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (Dubois, paragraph 30; Case T-99/98 Hameico Stuttgart and Others v Council and Commission [2003] ECR II-2195, paragraph 26).


66

However, a claim for an unspecified form of damage is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible (Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975, paragraph 9; Automec, paragraph 73; Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-2193, paragraph 181).


67

In this case, the applicant has set out, in paragraphs 142 to 154 of the application, the nature of the various heads of damage in respect of which it seeks compensation and the methods used to determine their amount. It has stated, in a sufficiently detailed manner, the circumstances on which it relies in order to establish the reality and the certainty of the damage claimed, and its extent.


68

Concerning the reality and the certainty of the damage, the applicant has stated that the 1999 regime has profoundly affected its business and its results. It has stated in particular that that damage is clearly reflected in its capitalisation, which, since the adoption of the 1993 regime, has diminished by more than 96%. It states that, between 1999 and 2000, its capitalisation fell from USD 625 million to 79.2 million, a reduction of 87%. Since Chiquita Brands International Inc. is a company quoted on the stock exchange, that is public information that is widely disseminated, particularly in the press.


69

As regards the extent of that damage and the quantification of the damages sought, the applicant has made a distinction between the loss of earnings suffered and the costs which it has incurred. In relation to the loss of earnings, it has referred to the method followed by the WTO arbitrators in order to quantify the loss suffered by the United States of America and Ecuador by reason of the incompatibility of the 1993 regime with WTO rules, an incompatibility which also applied to the 1999 regime. On the basis of those factors and its turnover during the years 1999 and 2000, the applicant has made a calculation in order to determine the turnover it would have achieved, were it not for the incompatibility of the 1999 regime with WTO law. It argues that that loss of earnings is equal to the difference between the profits which it would have made on that hypothetical turnover and the profits actually made in 1999 and 2000. At the conclusion of that calculation, the applicant puts that loss of earnings at EUR 543.6 million. In relation to the extraordinary expenses referred to, the applicant has stated that these are costs relating to staff reductions in 1999, excess transport capacity in 1999 and 2000 and legal fees. The applicant calculates those costs at EUR 20.5 million.


70

The explanation of the nature and extent of the damage which the applicant has given in its application therefore satisfies the provisions of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That enables the Commission to defend itself and the Court to exercise its power of judicial review.



Conformity of the application with Article 44(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure

71

It is apparent from the wording of Article 44(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, and more particularly from the expression’where appropriate’, that the application does not necessarily have to contain offers of evidence. The only sanction concerning offers of evidence is that they may be rejected on account of delay if they are submitted for the first time, and without justification, at the reply or rejoinder stage (Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure).


72

Under Article 43(4) of the Rules of Procedure, ‘[t]o every pleading there shall be annexed a file containing the documents relied on in support of it, together with a schedule listing them’. The case-law shows that non-compliance with that obligation may entail the inadmissibility of the action if it is of such a kind as to hamper the other parties in the preparation of their arguments (Case T-293/01 Ineichen v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-441, paragraph 29 et seq.).


73

In this case, the Commission has submitted a particularly detailed defence, which shows that it has not in any way been hampered by the failure to lodge documents with the application.


74

The Commission’s criticisms concerning evidence of the existence of damage therefore go to the merits of the dispute and not to its admissibility (see, to that effect, Hameico Stuttgart, paragraph 32).


75

The action is therefore admissible.



(参照) 損害賠償請求の訴え

損害賠償請求の訴えの実体的要件



Voice Home Page of Satoshi Iriinafuku


「EU法講義ノート」のトップページに戻る