Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trends in the case law on the action for damages against Community Institutions

  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Regulation(EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 establishing commonrules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation(EEC)No295/91, OJL46/1; COM(2005)672finalat http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/actionfordamages/indexen.html.

  2. Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 andT-272/01Philip Morris International and Others vCommission [2003]ECRII-1, paragraph 123.

  3. CaseC-131/03P R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Japan Tobacco Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., Opinionof Advocate General Sharpston of 6 April 2006.

  4. Under Article 195 EC (Article II-103 Constitutional Treaty) cases of malad ministration may bereferred to the European Ombudsman.

  5. Case T-105/96Pharos SA v Commission [1998]ECRII-285, at paragraph 73.

  6. Case T-167/94Detlef Nölle v Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2589.

  7. Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00CEVA Santé Animale SA and Pharmacia Entreprises SA v Commission [2003] ECR II-229, atparagraph 103.

  8. Case C-198/03 PCommission v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, judgment of 12 July 2005.

  9. See Case C-352/98PLaboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291.

  10. Case T285/03,Agraz, SA and Others v Commission, judgment of 17 March 2005.

  11. Case T-105/96Pharos SA v Commission [1998] ECR II-285, at paragraphs 49 and 50 under the heading «The rules governing liability,’ in which both the applicant and defendant agree that thetest of responsibility relating to legislative acts must be proved.

  12. Cases 9 and 12/60Société Commerciale Antoine Vloeberghs, SA v High Authority, [1961] ECR 197, Opinion of Advocate Gener al R oemera t 239.

  13. Case T364/03Medici Grimm KG v Council, judgment of 26 January 2006.

  14. CaseT-7/99Medici Grimm v Council [2000] ECRII-2671.

  15. Case T364/03Medici Grimm KG v Council, judgment 26 January 2006

  16. Case T-69/00Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM), and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies, Inc. (FIAMM Technologies) v Council and Commission, Case T-383/00Beamglow, Case T-320/00Cartondruck, Case T-301/00Groupe Fremaux, Case T-1 51/00Le Laboratoire de Bain, CaseT-135/01Giorgio Fedom and Figli, judgments of 14 December 2005.

  17. Case T-69/00,Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM),and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies, Inc. (FIAMM Technologies, judgment of 14 December 2005, paragraphs 108–147.

  18. Case C 237/98PDorsch Consult v Council and Commission [2000] ECRI-4549.

  19. CaseT-383/00Beamglow, judgment of 14 December 2005, paragraphs 80 and 169.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warwick, UK

    Jill Wakefield (Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. Jill Wakefield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wakefield, J. Trends in the case law on the action for damages against Community Institutions. ERA Forum 7, 519–529 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856587

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02856587

Keywords

Search

Navigation