Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Action for Damages in the Case of Infringement of Fundamental Rights by the European Union

  • Chapter
Damages for Violations of Human Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 9))

Abstract

The EU law recognises damages claims in the case of the violation of fundamental rights by EU institutions. For a long time, only the infringement of the superior (fundamental) norm protecting rights of individuals could give rise to liability of the EU for legislative acts. Currently, such a condition is not expressly required; however, in practice, the character of the norm is taken into account when considering the fulfilment of the conditions for the liability. EU law not only accepts the liability for the infringements of human rights, but the right to make good any damage caused by the EU is recognised as a fundamental right. This study aims to analyse the issue of EU liability for breach of fundamental rights, its evolution in the case law and the EU legislation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As stated by the Permanent Court of International Justice in judgment of 26.7.1927: “It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.” Chorzów Factory case (1927) PCIJ ser. A, No 9, p. 21.

  2. 2.

    36/75, Rutili, [1975] ECR 1219; 44/79, Hauer, [1979] ECR 3727.

  3. 3.

    Art. 6 (3) TEU: “Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law”.

  4. 4.

    C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur vs. Germany and The Queen vs. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd and others, [1996] ECR I-102, para. 29.

  5. 5.

    As stated in the Explanations to Art. 52(2): “It clarifies that such rights remain subject to the conditions and limits applicable to the Union law on which they are based, and for which provision is made in the Treaties. The Charter does not alter the system of rights conferred by the EC Treaty and taken over by the Treaties.”, O.J. 2007 C 303, p. 2.

  6. 6.

    C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others vs. Italy, [1991] ECR I-5357; see, e.g., the opinion of the Advocate General Mengozzi in C-279/09, Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH vs. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2010:489 para. 46, “the right to reparation of persons harmed by an infringement of EU law is a fundamental principle of the Union based on the rule of law established by the treaties and a specific variation on the principle of effective judicial protection”.

  7. 7.

    See, e.g. Edward (1988) 121; Edward Robinson (1997) 339 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Opinion in case C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM) and others, para.55. He also stated: “Although the Court of Justice must certainly be guided by the most characteristic provisions of the systems of domestic law, it must above all ensure that it adopts a solution appropriate to the needs and specific features of the Community legal system. In other words, the Court has the task of drawing on the legal traditions of the Member States in order to find an answer to similar legal questions arising under Community law that both respects those traditions and is appropriate to the context of the Community legal order. From that point of view, even a solution adopted by a minority may be preferred if it best meets the requirements of the Community system.”

  9. 9.

    C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM), ECLI:EU:C:2008:476 para.175: “(…) while comparative examination of the Member States’ legal systems enabled the Court to make at a very early stage the finding (…) concerning convergence of those legal systems in the establishment of a principle of liability in the case of unlawful action or an unlawful omission of the authority, including of a legislative nature, that is in no way the position as regards the possible existence of a principle of liability in the case of a lawful act or omission of the public authorities, in particular where it is of a legislative nature.”

  10. 10.

    See van der Woude (1997) 126.

  11. 11.

    T-390/94, Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius Thamann vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1997:51, para. 57.

  12. 12.

    5/71, Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt vs. Council of the European Communities, ECLI:EU:C:1971:116 para. 11; C-104/89 and C-37/90, J. M. Mulder and others vs. Council and Commission, [2000] ECR I-203, para 12–13.

  13. 13.

    83 and 94/76 and 4, 15 and 40/77, Bayerische Vermehrungsbetriebe and others vs. Council and the Commission, [1978] ECR 1209, para. 5.

  14. 14.

    E.g. C-104/89 and C-37/90, Mulder, para. 15. See also Arnull (1997) 138; Heukles and McDonnell (1997) 5.

  15. 15.

    83 and 94/76, 4, 15 and 40/77, Bayerische Vermehrungsbetriebe, para. 7; opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven in C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder v. Council and Commission, para. 29 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Tridimas (2009) 298.

  17. 17.

    C-352/98 P, Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and others vs. Commission, [2000] ECR I-5291.

  18. 18.

    C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur, para. 42

  19. 19.

    C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur, para. 51; in respect of the liability of the EU see, e.g., C-198/03 P, Commission vs. CEVA Santé Animale SA and Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, [2005] ECR I-6357, para. 63.

  20. 20.

    C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur, para.s 69–72.

  21. 21.

    C-611/12 P, Jean-François Giordano vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2282, para.40.

  22. 22.

    238/78 Ireks-Arkady vs. Council, para. 9; C-312/00 P, Commission vs. Camar and others, [2002] ECR I-11355, para. 54 and 55; C-198/03 P, Commission v. CEVA, para. 64; see more, e.g. Harlow, (1996) 80 et seq.

  23. 23.

    As the CJEU states: “Where that institution has only a considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach (…). The determining factor in deciding whether there has been such an infringement is therefore the discretion available to the institution concerned (…)”, C-198/03 P, Commission vs. CEVA, para. 65–66; C-352/98 P, Bergaderm vs. Commission, para. 44; C-312/00 P, Commission vs. Camar, para. 54.

  24. 24.

    C-352/98 P, Bergaderm vs. Commission, para. 40, C-312/00 P, Commission v. Camar, para. 52; C-472/00 P, Commission vs. Fresh Marine Company A/S, [2003] ECR I-7541, para. 24, C-198/03 P, Commission vs. Ceva, para. 64). The General Court is even more specific, stating that what should be considered is “the complexity of the situation to be regulated, the difficulties in the application or interpretation of the legislation, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, and whether the error of law made was inexcusable or intentional (…)”, T-429/05, Artegodan GmbH vs. Commission, [2010] ECR II-491, para. 62.

  25. 25.

    T-429/05, Artegodan GmbH vs. Commission, para. 55.

  26. 26.

    T-160/03, AFCon Management Consultants and others vs. Commission, [2005] ECR II-981; T-196/99, Area Cova and others vs. Commission, [2001] ECR II-3597; T-351/03, Schneider Electric SA vs. Commission, ECR [2007] II-2237. See also examples provided for by Ward (2012) 596–597.

  27. 27.

    C-611/12 P, Giordano vs. Commission, para. 49.

  28. 28.

    Explanations to Art. 52(5) CFR, O.J. 2007 C 303 p. 2.

  29. 29.

    See, e.g., Hofmann and Mihaescu (2013) 95

  30. 30.

    T-48/05, Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2008:257, para. 218: “(…) the principle of the presumption of innocence confers rights on individuals. It should be observed that the obligation to maintain confidentiality also confers rights on individuals who are affected by an OLAF investigation in so far as they are entitled to expect that the investigations concerning them will be conducted in a manner that respects their fundamental rights. In the same way, the applicants are entitled to rely in the present case on the principle of sound administration in that it entails the right to have their cases dealt with in such a way that confidentiality is maintained.”

  31. 31.

    T-19/07, Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:526. This judgment was subsequently annulled by the Court of Justice, which held that General Court was wrong in its a view that the dispute in question was of a non-contractual nature; C-103/11 P, Commission vs. Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA, ECLI:EU:C:2013:245.

  32. 32.

    T-193/04, Hans-Martin Tillack vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2006:292, para. 127; T-187/11, Mohamed Trabelsi and others, ECLI:EU:T:2013:273.

  33. 33.

    C-282/90, Industrie- en Handelsonderneming Vreugdenhil BV vs. Commission, [1992] ECR I-1937; T-429/05, Artegodan vs. Commission.

  34. 34.

    106/81, Julius Kind KG vs. European Economic Community, [1982] ECR 2885.

  35. 35.

    59/83, Biovilac NV vs. European Economic Community, [1984] ECR 4057; see. more Bronkhorst, (1997) 153.

  36. 36.

    T-184/95, Dorsch Consult v. Council and Commission, [1998] ECR II-667, para. 35.

  37. 37.

    C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM, para. 168. See more, e.g. Gutman (2011) 740.

  38. 38.

    C 120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM, para. 168–176.

  39. 39.

    Opinion in C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM, para. 74.

  40. 40.

    CJEU confirmed this position in further judgments, e.g. C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P, Gérard Buono and others vs. Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2284, para. 43: “It is undisputed that, as EU law currently stands, a comparative examination of the Member States’ legal systems does not permit the affirmation of a regime providing for non-contractual liability of the European Union for the lawful pursuit by it of its activities falling within the legislative sphere”.

  41. 41.

    C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM, para. 184.

  42. 42.

    Case C-355/04 P, Segi, AraitZubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga vs. Council, [2007] ECR I-1657, para. 44–48; C-354/04 P, Gestoras Pro Amnistía, Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen Zelarain Errasti vs. Council, [2007] ECR I-1579; see also view of Advocat General Kokott in 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2475, para. 94–95.

  43. 43.

    Decision of 23.5.2002, no 6422/02 and 9916/02, Segi and Others & Gestoras Pro-Amnistia And Others vs. 15 States of The European Union , http://hudoc.echr.coe.int. Accesed 4 March 2015.

  44. 44.

    T-383/00, Beamglow Ltd vs. European Parliament, Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, [2005] ECR II-5459, para. 127; C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P, FIAMM, para. 128–131.

  45. 45.

    Judgment of 18.2.1999, 24833/94, Matthews vs. UK; Judgment of 30.6.2005, 45036/98, Bosphorus vs. Ireland, para. 155.

  46. 46.

    45036/98, Bosphorus vs. Ireland, para. 155.

  47. 47.

    Decision of 9.12.2008, 13762/04, Societe Etablissements Biret vs. 15 EU Member States.

  48. 48.

    Annually, there is only an average of 16 claims for damages, and the success rate is currently about 8 % (based on Kawczyńska 2014, 279).

  49. 49.

    Before 2000 (the Bergaderm judgment), only in 20 claims were the damages awarded; in the 14 years after Bagarderm, 19 claims have been successful, see. Kawczyńska (2014) 279.

  50. 50.

    See e.g. Groussot et al. (2011).

  51. 51.

    Opinion 2/13 (Full Court), ECLI:EU:C:2014:2475

References

  • Arnull, Anthony. 1997. Liability for Legislative Acts under Article 215(2) EC. 138. In The action for damages in community law, ed. Ton Heukles and Alison Mc. Donnell, 129–152. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronkhorst, H.J. 1997. The valid legislative act as a cause of liability of the communities. In The action for damages in community law, ed. Ton Heukles and Alison Mc. Donnell, 153–166. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward, David. 1988. Is there a place for private law principles in community law? In Non-contractual liability of the European communities, ed. Henry G. Schermers, Heukles Ton, and Mead Philip, 121–124. The Hague: Martinus Nijihoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edward, David, and William Robinson. 1997. Is there a place principles for private law in community law? In The action for damages in community law, ed. Ton Heukles and Alison Mc. Donnell, 339–349. The Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot, Xavier, Tobias Lock, and Laurent Pech. 2011. EU accession to the European convention on human rights: A legal assessment of the draft accession agreement of 14th October 2011. Fondation Robert Schuman, “Policy Paper – European Issues”, no. 218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, Kathleen. 2011. The evolution of the action for damages against the European Union and its place in the system of judicial protection. Common Market Law Review 48(3): 695–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, Carol. 1996. State liability: Problem without solution. National Journal of Constitutional Law 6: 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heukles, Ton, and Mc. Donnell Alison. 1997. The action for damages in a community law perspective: Introduction. In The action for damages in community law, ed. Ton Heukles and Alison Mc. Donnell, 5–10. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, Herwig C.H., and Bucura C. Mihaescu. 2013. The relation between the Charter’s fundamental rights and the unwritten general principles of EU law: Good administration as the test case. European Constitutional Law Review 9(1): 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawczyńska, Monika. 2014. Pozaumowna odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza Unii Europejskiej (not published doctoral thesis), Kraków.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas, Takis. 2009. The general principles of EU law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Woude, Marc H. 1997. Liability for Administrative acts under Article 215 (2) EC. In The action for damages in community law, ed. Ton Heukles and Alison Mc. Donnell, 109–128. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Angela. 2012. Damages under the EU charter of fundamental rights. ERA Forum 12(4): 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

    Nina Półtorak (Professor)

Authors
  1. Nina Półtorak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Półtorak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, Gdańsk University, Gdańsk, Poland

    Ewa Bagińska

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Półtorak, N. (2016). Action for Damages in the Case of Infringement of Fundamental Rights by the European Union. In: Bagińska, E. (eds) Damages for Violations of Human Rights. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation