31As to this, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, a finding of the unlawfulness of a legal measure — like the measures challenged in the present case and found to be unlawful in the light of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70), and of Article 1(4) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93) - is not enough, however regrettable that unlawfulness may be, for it to be held that the condition for the incurring of the Community’s non-contractual liability relating to the unlawfulness of the institutions’ alleged conduct has been satisfied (see, to this effect, Case C-282/05 P Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission [2007] ECR I-2941, paragraph 47; Case T-56/00 Dole Fresh Fruit International v Council and Commission [2003] ECR II-577, paragraphs 72 to 75; and Case T-212/03 MyTravel v Commission [2008] ECR II-1967, paragraphs 43 and 85).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.