Skip to main content

Foreseeing Liability for Breach of EC Law. Reflections on the ECJ’s Differing Notions of Illegality

  • Chapter
  • 297 Accesses

Part of the book series: Tort and Insurance Law ((TILY,volume 2005))

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. European Court of Justice (ECJ), Case C-312/00 P [2002] European Court Reports (ECR) I-11355 no. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ECJ, Cases C-6 & 9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Gilsdorf/ M. Niejahr, in: H. v. d. Groeben/ J. Schwarze (eds.), Vertrag über die EU und Vertrag zur Gründung der EG, Kommentar (6th ed. 2004) Art. 288 EG no. 8, 49, 59; A. v. Bogdandy, in: E. Grabitz/M. Hilf (eds.), EU-Kommentar, Art. 288 no. 5, 123; U. Säuberlich, Die außervertragliche Haftung im Gemeinschaftsrecht (2005) 16 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  4. ECJ, Case C-46/93 [1996] ECR I-1029.

    Google Scholar 

  5. ECJ, Case C-352/98 P [2000] ECR I-5291.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Cornils, Der gemeinschaftsrechtliche Staatshaftungsanspruch (1995) 196; see also F. Ossenbühl, Staatshaftungsrecht (5th ed. 1998) 602.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See F. Ossenbühl, in: H.-W. Rengeling (ed.), Handbuch zum europäischen und deutschen Umweltrecht, vol. 1 (2nd ed. 2003) § 42 no. 50 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gilsdorf/ Niejahr J. Schwarze (eds.), Vertrag über die EU und Vertrag zur Gründung der EG, Kommentar (6th ed. 2004) (fn. 3) no. 34 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ECJ, Case 5/71, Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975 no. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  10. ECJ, Case 152/88, Sofrimport v Commission [1990] ECR 2477 no. 26; M. Ruffert, in: C. Calliess/M. Ruffert (eds.), Kommentar zu EU-und EG-Vertrag (2nd ed. 2002) Art. 88 no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See for a list of the rules protecting individuals acknowledged by the Court Ossenbühl (fn. 6) 591.

    Google Scholar 

  12. In this sense however Advocate General Tesauro in the Case C-46/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR 1066 no. 76; F. Fines, Étude de la responsabilité extracontractuelle de la Communauté Economique Européenne (1990) 331.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ossenbühl (fn. 6) 591; A. Czaja, Die außervertragliche Haftung der EG für ihre Organe (1996) 79 f.

    Google Scholar 

  14. ECJ, Case 5/71, Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975 no. 11; C. Vesting, Die vertragliche und außervertragliche Haftung der EG nach Art. 288 EGV (2003) 90 f.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ossenbühl (fn. 6) 594; Gilsdorf/Niejahr (fn. 3) no. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  16. ECJ, Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, Bayerische HNL Vermehrungsbetriebe v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209 no. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. ECJ, Case 238/78, Ireks-Arkady v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 2955.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ECJ, Cases 116 & 124/77, Amylum and Tunnel Refineries v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 3497.

    Google Scholar 

  19. AG van Gerven, Case 37/90, Mulder v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061; M. Gellermann, in: H.-W. Rengeling/A. Middeke/M. Gellermann (eds.), Handbuch des Rechtsschutzes in der Europäischen Union (2nd ed. 2003) 197.

    Google Scholar 

  20. ECJ, Cases 116 & 124/77, Amylum and Tunnel Refineries v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 3497.

    Google Scholar 

  21. ECJ, Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, Bayerische HNL Vermehrungsbetriebe v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209 no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. ECJ, Cases C-6 & 9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357; see Cornils (fn. 6).

    Google Scholar 

  23. ECJ, Case C-392/93, R. v HM Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications [1996] ECR I-1631; Case C-5/94, R. v Ministery of Agriculture, ex parte Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553; Cases C-178-179 & 188-190/94, Dillenkofer & others v Germany [1996] ECR I-4845; Case C-127/95, Norbrook Laboratories v Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery & Food [1998] ECR I-1531; Case C-302/97, Konle v Austria [1999] ECR I-3099; Case C-140/97, Rechberger v Austria [1999] I-3499; Case C-424/97, Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung [2000] ECR I-5123; Case C-118/00, Larsy v Inasti [2001] I-5063; Case C-224/01, Köbler v Austria [2003] I-10239.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See Cornils (fn. 6) 192 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  25. ECJ, Cases C-46 & 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany [1996] ECR I-1029 no. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  26. ECJ, Cases C-46 & 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany [1996] ECR I-1029 no. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Case C-352/98 P, Laboratoires Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291 no. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. Craig/ G. de Búrca, EU Law (3rd ed. 2003) 555 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ruffert M. Ruffert (eds.), Kommentar zu EU-und EG-Vertrag (2nd ed. 2002) (fn. 11) Art. 288 no. 36; B. Grzeszick, Europarecht (EuR) 1998, 417 (427 ff.).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Case C-472/00 P, Commission v Fresh Marine Company [2003] ECR I-7541.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See e.g. Gellermann A. Middeke/ M. Gellermann (eds.), Handbuch des Rechtsschutzes in der Europäischen Union (2nd ed. 2003) (fn. 20) 197; Ruffert (fn. 11) Art. 288 no. 15; Säuberlich (fn. 3) 26; W. Weiß, EuR 2005, 277 (292); accurate assessment of the new jurisdiction by Craig/de Búrca (fn. 29) 557 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  32. ECJ, Cases C-46 & 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany [1996] ECR I-1029 no. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  33. ECJ, Case C-472/00 P, Commission v Fresh Marine Company [2003] ECR I-7541 no. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  34. AG van Gerven, Case 37/90, Mulder v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061; Ruffert (fn. 11) Art. 288 no. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Similarly: Craig/ de Búrca (fn. 29) 557 f.

    Google Scholar 

  36. v. Bogdandy M. Hilf (eds.), EU-Kommentar, Art. 288 no. 5, 123 (fn. 3) Art. 288 no. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  37. ECJ, Cases C-6 & 9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357 no. 32 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  38. ECJ, Cases C-6 & 9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357 no. 39 ff.; Cases C-178-179 & 188-190/94, Dillenkofer & others v Germany [1996] ECR I-4845 no. 21 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See ECJ, Case C-390/95 P, Antillean Rice Mills v Commission [1999] ECR I-769 no. 60; Ossenbühl (fn. 6) 596 f.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E.g.: ECJ, Case C-198/03 P, Commission v CEVA Santé Animale [2005] no. 72 ff.; CFI, Case T-364/03, Medici Grimm [2006].

    Google Scholar 

  41. Case C-224/01, Köbler v Austria [2003] I-10239; annotations by M. Breuer, European Law Review (E.L.Rev.) 29, 2004, 243; T. von Danwitz, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2004, 301; W. Kluth, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl) 2004, 393; B. Wegener, EuR 2004, 84.

    Google Scholar 

  42. ECJ, Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, Bayerische HNL v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209 no. 3; Cornils (fn. 6) 202.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See B. Grzeszick, Rechte und Ansprüche (2002) 334 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  44. R. Alexy, Theorie der Grundrechte (1985) 71 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  45. R. Rebhahn, Staatshaftung wegen mangelnder Gefahrenabwehr (1997) 117 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  46. ECJ, Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, Bayerische HNL v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209 no. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  47. ECJ, Case C-224/01, Köbler v Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239 no 30 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  48. ECJ, Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, Bayerische HNL v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209 no. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  49. ECJ, Case C-224/01, Köbler v Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239 no. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gilsdorf/ Niejahr J. Schwarze (eds.), Vertrag über die EU und Vertrag zur Gründung der EG, Kommentar (6th ed. 2004) (fn. 3) Art. 288 no. 62 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  51. ECJ, Cases 83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, Bayerische HNL Vermehrungsbetriebe v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209 no. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  52. ECJ, Cases C-104/89 & 37/90, Mulder v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061.

    Google Scholar 

  53. CFI, Case T-364/03, Medici Grimm [2006] no. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  54. ECJ, Cases C-46 & 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany [1996] ECR I-1029 no. 79.

    Google Scholar 

  55. ECJ, Case C-352/98 P, Laboratoires Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291 no. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  56. ECJ, Case C-352/98 P, Laboratoires Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291 no. 44; CFI, Case T-283/02, EnBW Kernkraft v Commission [2005] no. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Craig/ de Búrca (fn. 29) 547 (“the general test”) 558 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  58. AG Stix-Hackl, opinion to case C-472/00 P, Commission v Fresh Marine [2003] ECR I-7541 no. 74 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  59. CFI, cases T-198/95 & others, Comafrica, Dole v Commission [2001] ECR II-1975 no. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  60. CFI, Case T-364/03, Medici Grimm [2006] no. 87 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  61. ECJ, Case C-118/00, Larsy v Inasti [2001] ECR I-5063 no. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Craig/ de Búrca (fn. 29) 558.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag/Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cornils, M. (2006). Foreseeing Liability for Breach of EC Law. Reflections on the ECJ’s Differing Notions of Illegality. In: Koziol, H., Steininger, B.C. (eds) European Tort Law 2005. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 2005. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-31136-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics