Advertisement

ERA Forum

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 519–529 | Cite as

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

  • Jill Wakefield
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Keywords

Advocate General Community Institution Unlawful Conduct Judicial Protection Retroactive Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Under Article 195 EC (Article II-103 Constitutional Treaty) cases of malad ministration may bereferred to the European Ombudsman.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Case T-105/96Pharos SA v Commission [1998]ECRII-285, at paragraph 73.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Case T-167/94Detlef Nölle v Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2589.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Case C-198/03 PCommission v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, judgment of 12 July 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    See Case C-352/98PLaboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291.Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    Case T285/03,Agraz, SA and Others v Commission, judgment of 17 March 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    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.Google Scholar
  12. 19.
    Cases 9 and 12/60Société Commerciale Antoine Vloeberghs, SA v High Authority, [1961] ECR 197, Opinion of Advocate Gener al R oemera t 239.Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    Case T364/03Medici Grimm KG v Council, judgment of 26 January 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    CaseT-7/99Medici Grimm v Council [2000] ECRII-2671.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    Case T364/03Medici Grimm KG v Council, judgment 26 January 2006Google Scholar
  16. 24.
    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.Google Scholar
  17. 25.
    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.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    Case C 237/98PDorsch Consult v Council and Commission [2000] ECRI-4549.Google Scholar
  19. 28.
    CaseT-383/00Beamglow, judgment of 14 December 2005, paragraphs 80 and 169.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill Wakefield
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WarwickUK

Personalised recommendations