Case C‑350/16 P
Salvatore Aniello Pappalardo and Others
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Common fisheries policy — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Claim for compensation — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Emergency measures adopted by the European Commission — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law — Whether possible to rely on that breach — Principle of non-discrimination — Res judicata)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 13 September 2017
Judicial proceedings—Res judicata—Scope—Judgment of the Court concerning the validity of an EU act—Later judgment of the Court defining the exact scope of the earlier judgment—Due regard for the force of res judicata attaching to the first judgment of the Court
EU law—Principles—Protection of legitimate expectations—Conditions—Specific assurances given by the authorities—Concept
EU law—Principles—Equal treatment—Need to comply with the principle of legality—Impossible to rely on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law—Operative part well founded for other legal reasons—Rejection
(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
By virtue of the force of res judicata attaching to decisions of the Court of Justice concerning the validity of an EU act, such decisions have full effect despite any differences of interpretation to which they may give rise.
Thus, even when any uncertainty there may have been as to the exact scope of a judgment of the Court has been finally dispelled only as a result of the clarification provided in another judgment of the Court, the fact remains that the first judgment must be deemed to have had, from the time of its delivery, the scope as defined in the second judgment.
Moreover, the force of res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by a judicial decision.
(see paras 34, 35, 37)
The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any person whom an institution of the European Union has caused, by giving him precise assurances, to entertain justified hopes. Information which is precise, unconditional and consistent, in whatever form it is given, constitutes such assurances. By contrast, a person may not plead breach of that principle unless he has been given those assurances.
Even if a judicial decision were able, on its own, to give rise to a right to entertain justified hopes within the meaning of that case-law, no precise assurance as to the scope of a decision of the Court of Justice can be derived from an order by which the General Court held, on the basis of that decision, that there was no need to adjudicate.
(see paras 39, 40)
The principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with the principle of legality, according to which a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party.
(see para. 52)
If the grounds of a decision of the General Court contain an infringement of EU law but its operative part is shown to be well founded on other legal grounds, such an infringement is not one that should cause that decision to be set aside, and a substitution of grounds must be made.
(see para. 57)