34Mr van den Berg's argument that it followed from the fact that the Communication of 5 August 1992 was applied in his case that the Council and the Commission undertook not to plead that his claim was time-barred after 31 March 1989, the date on which he submitted a claim to the institutions, was refuted as follows in paragraphs 65 to 67 of the judgment under appeal:65 It should be pointed out, in that regard, that the waiver of the right to plead that entitlement to claim was time-barred contained in the Communication of 5 August 1992 was a unilateral act which was intended to limit the number of actions brought by encouraging producers to await the introduction of the flat-rate compensation scheme provided for by Regulation No 2187/93 ([Case T-222/97] Steffens v Council and Commission [[1998] ECR II-4175], paragraph 38).66 That communication was specifically aimed at producers whose entitlement to compensation was not yet time-barred on the date on which it was published in the Official Journal or on the date on which they had already applied to one of the institutions ... By the latter reference, the defendants were referring to producers who had applied to the institutions before the publication of the Communication in order to claim entitlement to compensation on the basis of Mulder II and who had been requested not to initiate actions for damages pending the adoption of the regulation determining flat-rate compensation. The purpose of that reference was to protect those producers' entitlement to compensation.67 However, the letter of 31 March 1989 was never followed by a reply from the defendants and, consequently, they never gave any commitment in regard to the applicant on that date. In those circumstances, the applicant cannot rely on the Communication of 5 August 1992.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.