CELEX: 62001TJ0139
Common organisation of the markets
Bananas
Imports from ACP States and third countries
Regulation (EC) No 896/2001
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001
Action for annulment
Admissibility
Person individually concerned
Action for damages

Law
A common organisation of the market in bananas (‘the bananas COM’) was established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of
13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1). That regulation introduced, as
from 1 July 1993, a common import system to replace the various national systems which had previously operated.
Title IV of Regulation No 404/93, comprising Articles 15 to 20, deals with trade with third countries.
Following proceedings brought by the Republic of Ecuador and the United States of America against the Community pursuant to
the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Council adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 216/2001
of 29 January 2001 amending Regulation No 404/93 (OJ 2001 L 31, p. 2).
Article 1 of Regulation No 216/2001 replaced Articles 16 to 20 of Regulation No 404/93 as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28). Pursuant to the combined provisions of the second paragraph of Article
2 of Regulation No 216/2001 and Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 395/2001 of 27 February 2001 fixing certain indicative
quantities and individual ceilings for the issuing of Community import licences for bananas for the second quarter of 2001
under the tariff quotas or as part of the quantity of traditional ACP bananas (OJ 2001 L 58, p. 11), Article 1 of Regulation
No 216/2001 applies with effect from 1 July 2001.
The first paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 216/2001, provides that ‘[t]o the extent
necessary, importation of bananas into the Community shall be subject to submission of an import licence, to be issued by
Member States to any interested parties irrespective of their place of establishment in the Community and without prejudice
to specific provisions adopted for the application of Articles 18 and 19’.
Article 18 of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 216/2001, provides:
‘1.

Each year from 1 January the following tariff quotas shall be opened:
(a)

a tariff quota of 2 200 000 tonnes net weight, called “quota A”;
(b)

an additional tariff quota of 353 000 tonnes net weight, called “quota B”;
(c)

an autonomous tariff quota of 850 000 tonnes net weight, called “quota C”.
These tariff quotas shall be open for imports of products originating in all third countries.
The Commission may, on the basis of an agreement with [WTO] contracting parties with a substantial interest in the supply
of bananas, allocate tariff quotas “A” and “B” among supplier countries.
2. Imports under tariff quotas “A” and “B” shall be subject to a customs duty of EUR 75 per tonne.
3. Imports under tariff quota “C” shall be subject to a customs duty of EUR 300 per tonne
...
4. A tariff preference of EUR 300 per tonne shall apply to imports originating in ACP countries both under and outside the
tariff quotas.
...’
Article 19 of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 216/2001, provides:
‘1.

The tariff quotas may be managed in accordance with the method based on taking account of traditional trade flows (“traditional/newcomers”)
and/or other methods.
2.

The method adopted shall take account as appropriate of the need to maintain the equilibrium of supply to the Community market.’
Under Article 20(a) of Regulation No 404/93 as amended, the Commission is empowered to adopt, pursuant to the procedure prescribed
by Article 27 of that regulation, ‘rules on the management of the tariff quotas referred to in Article 18’.
Those management rules are defined by Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for
applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 2001
L 126, p. 6; ‘the 2001 regime’). Regulation No 896/2001 entered into force, pursuant to Article 32 thereof, on the day following
its publication in the
Official Journal of the European Communities
, 9 May 2001, but was only applicable with effect from 1 July 2001.
The rules laid down in Regulation No 896/2001 replace those initially set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 laying
down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6;
‘the 1993 regime’), adopted pursuant to Regulation No 404/93 and which remained in force until 31 December 1998. The 1993
regime was then replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32; ‘the 1999 regime’),
which entered into force on 1 January 1999.
Under the 1993 regime, the import licences were divided into three categories of operator (A, B and C). Categories A and B
were themselves subdivided according to one of three different economic activities carried out by the operators, namely, the
purchase of green bananas, or direct imports (category A), as owners, the release for free circulation of green bananas, or
secondary imports (category B) and, as owners, the ripening of green bananas and their marketing (category C) (see Article
3(1) of Regulation No 1442/93). That was implemented, at least as regards operators under categories A and B, by reference
to the three-year period preceding the year for which the tariff quota was opened (see Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1442/93).
That system of categorisation was abolished by the 1999 regime, which was based essentially on a distinction between ‘traditional
operators’ and ‘non-traditional operators’ (see Article 2 of Regulation No 2362/98). Under that regime, for each year, traditional
operators obtained a reference quantity fixed on the basis of the quantity of bananas they had in fact imported during the
reference period. Pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2362/98, for imports made in 1999, the reference period covered
1994, 1995 and 1996.
The 2001 regime introduced a new system for categorising import licences based essentially on a distinction between ‘traditional
operators’ and ‘non-traditional operators’, the former being subdivided into ‘traditional operators A/B’ and ‘traditional
operators C’.
Article 2 of Regulation No 896/2001 thus provides, in its initial version, that 83% of the tariff quotas referred to in Article
18(1) of Regulation No 404/93 are to be made available to ‘traditional operators as defined in Article 3(1)’, with the remaining
17% being made available to ‘non-traditional operators as defined in Article 6’.
Title II of Regulation No 896/2001, comprising Articles 3 to 21, concerns the ‘management of tariff quotas’.
Articles 3 to 5 of that regulation, in its initial version, provided:
‘Article 3
For the purposes of this Regulation:
1.
“traditional operators” means economic agents, whether natural persons or entities having legal personality, individual agents
or groups, established in the Community during the period for determining their reference quantities, who have, for their
own account, purchased a minimum quantity of bananas originating in third countries from the producers or, where applicable,
produced, consigned and sold such products in the Community.
Operations as defined in the previous subparagraph shall hereinafter be called “primary imports”.
…
2.
“traditional operators A/B” means traditional operators who have carried out the minimum quantity of primary imports of “third-country
bananas” and/or “non-traditional ACP” bananas in accordance with the definitions in Article 16 of Regulation [No 404/93],
as amended by Regulation … No 1637/98 …;
3.
“traditional operators C” means traditional operators who have carried out the minimum quantity of primary imports of “traditional
ACP bananas” in accordance with the definitions in the abovementioned Article 16, as amended by Regulation … No 1637/98.
Article 4
1.
The reference quantity for each traditional operator A/B who submits a written application no later than 11 May 2001 shall
be established on the basis of the average of primary imports of third-country bananas and/or non-traditional ACP bananas
during 1994, 1995 and 1996 taken into account for 1998 for the purposes of administering the tariff quota for imports of third-country
bananas and non-traditional ACP bananas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 19(2) of Regulation … No 404/93 applicable
in 1998 to the category of operators referred to in paragraph 1(a) of that article.
2.
The reference quantity for each traditional operator C who submits a written application no later than 11 May 2001 shall be
established on the basis of the average of primary imports of traditional ACP bananas during 1994, 1995 and 1996 carried out
for 1998 as traditional quantities of ACP bananas.
3.
Operators resulting from a merger of other traditional operators, each with their own rights under this Regulation, shall
enjoy the same rights as those former operators.
Article 5
1.

The Member States shall notify the Commission of the sum of the reference quantities referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) no
later than 15 May 2001.
2.

Using the information received under paragraph 1, and in light of the total quantities available under tariff quotas A/B and
C, the Commission shall, where appropriate, set a single adjustment coefficient to be applied to each operator’s reference
quantity.
3.

Where paragraph 2 applies, the competent authorities shall notify each operator of their reference quantity as adjusted by
the adjustment coefficient not later than 7 June 2001.
…’
Articles 6 to 12 of Regulation No 896/2001 deal with non-traditional operators.
The rules for the issue of import licences are set out in Articles 13 to 21 of Regulation No 896/2001.
Under Article 13(1) of that regulation, ‘the quantities of the tariff quotas A and B provided for in Article 18(1)(a) and
(b) of Regulation … No 404/93 are to be added together’ and ‘applications under quotas A and B shall be dealt with together’.
Article 13(2) of the same regulation precludes traditional operators A/B from submitting import licence applications other
than under tariff quota A/B, while traditional operators C are similarly limited to applying only under tariff quota C. It
also provides that those various traditional operators ‘may submit licence applications under the other tariff quota if they
are registered as non-traditional operators for that quota’.
Under Article 15(1) of Regulation No 896/2001:
‘For each quarter, applications for import licences shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member State listed
in the Annex to this Regulation during the first seven days of the month preceding the quarter for which the licences are
being issued.
Applications for import licences shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the Member State which established the
reference quantity, in the case of traditional operators, and of the Member State in which the operators are registered, in
the case of non-traditional operators.’
Under Article 16 of Regulation No 896/2001, ‘[t]he competent authorities shall notify the Commission of the quantities covered
by licence applications within two working days of the end of the application period’, identifying, for each of the tariff
quotas A/B and C, the quantities requested by the traditional operators A/B and C and by the non-traditional operators respectively.
Article 22, the sole provision of Title III of Regulation No 896/2001, deals with imports occurring outside the tariff quotas.
Title V of Regulation No 896/2001, comprising Articles 28 to 30, sets out certain ‘transitional arrangements’.
Under Article 28(1) of that regulation, the available tariff quota A/B for the second half of 2001 is set at a total of 1
137 159 tonnes. Article 28(2) of the same regulation provides that, for the same period, ‘the reference quantity for each
traditional operator established in accordance with Article 4 and after the application of Article 5(2) shall be multiplied
by the coefficient 0.4454 in the case of traditional operators A/B and by the coefficient 0.5992 in the case of traditional
operators C’.
Recitals 3 and 4 of Regulation No 896/2001 read as follows:
‘(3)

Article 19 of Regulation … No 404/93 provides that the tariff quotas may be managed in accordance with the method based on
taking account of traditional trade flows (“traditional/newcomers”) and/or other methods. To implement the new arrangements
from the second half of 2001, it is advisable to grant access to the tariff quotas to traditional operators who have undertaken
on their own account the purchase of fresh products from producers in third countries, or their production, as well as their
dispatch to and unloading in the customs territory of the Community, during a reference period. For the purposes of this Regulation,
these activities are called “primary imports”.
(4)

A single definition of traditional operators should be adopted for all tariff quotas, and their reference quantities should
be determined according to the same rules, but separately depending on whether these operators have supplied the Community
market with bananas originating in non-ACP third countries and non-traditional imports from ACP States or with traditional
ACP bananas during the reference period, within the meaning of the definitions in Article 16 of Regulation … No 404/93 applicable
before the amendment introduced by Regulation … No 216/2001.’
Recital 5 of Regulation No 896/2001 justifies the choice of 1994, 1995 and 1996 as the ‘reference period’ in the following
terms:
‘The reference period to be used for defining categories of operators and determining the reference quantities of traditional
operators should be the three-year period 1994 to 1996. The three-year period 1994 to 1996 is the most recent for which the
Commission has sufficiently reliable data on primary imports. Using that period can also resolve a dispute which has been
going on for a number of years with certain of the Community’s trading partners. In the light of the available data established
for the purpose of administering the quotas opened in 1998, traditional operators need not be registered.’
After the relevant national authorities of the Member States had notified the Commission of the total reference quantities
requested by the traditional operators in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation No 896/2001, the Commission adopted Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the adjustment coefficients to be applied to each traditional operator’s
reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas (OJ 2001 L 153, p. 12). As the total reference quantities
for all traditional operators A/B was 1 964 154 tonnes (see recital 2 of Regulation No 1121/2001), the Commission set, in
accordance with Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1121/2001, the adjustment coefficient provided for by Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 896/2001 for each traditional operator A/B at ‘1.07883’. For each traditional operator C, the Commission set the adjustment
coefficient at ‘0.97286’.
Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1121/2001 provides that ‘[f]or the second half of 2001, the reference quantity for each traditional
operator established in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation … No 896/2001 shall, following the application of paragraph
1, be adjusted by the coefficient laid down in Article 28(2) of [the latter regulation]’.
Background to the dispute
On 4 October 2000, the Commission submitted a communication to the Council on the application of the ‘first come, first served’
method for the Community banana regime and the implications of a ‘tariff only system’ (COM(2000) 621 final), in which it advocated
the adoption of an open market allocation system for licences to import bananas from third countries. This proposal was initially
considered by the Council, on 9 October 2000, as providing ‘a basis for settling the banana dispute, which … can and must
be resolved rapidly’. The Council called on the ‘competent bodies’ to ‘examine the technical aspects of the communication,
taking particular account of the concerns expressed by some delegations’ and called on the European Parliament to adopt a
position on the Commission’s proposal (Council Press Release No 12012/00 concerning the 2 294th Council meeting, pp. 12 and
13).
Whilst the technical aspects of that communication were being considered by both the relevant national authorities and the
members of the Banana Management Committee, the Commission entered into negotiations with the trade representative of the
United States of America with a view to resolving the ongoing dispute between that country and the European Community over
the banana COM.
On 7 February 2001, shortly after the adoption by the Council of Regulation No 216/2001, the Commission forwarded a communication
to the European Parliament entitled ‘Special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas (Council Regulation
(EC) No 856/1999) – Biennial report from the Commission 2000’ (COM(2001) 67 final). In Section 4 of that communication, under
the heading ‘Amending the EU regime following the WTO rulings’, the Commission states:
‘Following detailed discussions with interested parties the Commission put forward a proposal to the Council to amend Regulation
[No] 404/93 in November 1999. This proposal included a transitional tariff quota system, with three quotas being established,
prior to the introduction of a tariff-only system by 2006 at the latest. During discussions with third parties it became evident
that a system of quota management with licence distribution based on traditional trade flows with a historical reference period
was the preferred option.
After months of intensive discussions it seemed that a tariff quota system either based upon licences allocated on historical
performance or auctioning would be difficult to achieve, and that the discussions on historical reference periods were at
an impasse. Thus the Commission proposed in its Communication to the Council in July that the Commission should conclude its
examination of the first come, first served (FCFS) method of quota management. This was accepted by the Council and in October
2000, following its assessment of the FCFS method, the Commission presented a further Communication to the Council indicating
that it considered the FCFS method a viable option.
...
The Communication was reviewed in the General Affairs Council of 9 October 2000 in Luxembourg. A formal Council position is
expected once the European Parliament has expressed its opinion. An ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly resolution on the
reform of the EU banana regime was made during its session in Brussels from 9 to 12 October.’
On 11 April 2001, the Commission and the United States of America concluded ‘an understanding on bananas’ (‘the US-EU Agreement’).
The US-EU Agreement provides for the implementation by the Community, by 1 January 2006 at the latest, of a ‘tariff-only regime’
for imports of bananas. It states that, during the ‘interim period’, the Community will implement an import regime based on
‘historical licensing’ and provides for two transitional phases in that regard.
During Phase I, which came into effect on 1 July 2001, the Community is required to establish a combined tariff quota made
up of 2 200 000 tonnes (‘quota A’) and a separate tariff quota of 353 000 tonnes (‘quota B’). Those tariff quotas are managed
as a single quota, in the total amount of 2 553 000 tonnes. Bananas imported under the A and B quotas are subject to a tariff
of EUR 75 per tonne. The Community is also required to set a combined tariff quota C of 850 000 tonnes. Eighty-three per cent
of the tariff quota A/B is open to traditional operators based on ‘each qualified “traditional” operator’s 1994-96 average
annual final reference quantity (“reference quantity”) for the “A/B” quotas’. Qualified ‘traditional’ operators are ‘defined
according to the licences allocated under Article 19(1)(a) of Regulation No 404/93 and Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 1442/93
for “Category A, activity (a)”‘. Furthermore, ‘importers [do] not have to produce new evidence’. The remaining 17% of the
A/B quota licences are to be allocated to a new ‘non-traditional’ operator category. The Agreement prohibits the use of C
quota licences to import bananas under the A/B quota, and vice versa.
During Phase II, applicable with effect from 2002, the provisions of Phase I, in particular, will continue to apply but the
‘B’ element of the combined ‘A/B’ quota is to be increased by 100 000 tonnes, thus bringing the total available annual quota
to 2 653 000 tonnes.
On 30 April 2001, the Commission entered into an agreement with the Republic of Ecuador, essentially in the same terms as
the US-EU Agreement, bringing to an end the banana dispute between that country and the Community.
Facts and procedure
Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. (‘the applicants’) are companies registered in Italy and Germany respectively.
They are members of the Dole group of companies (Dole group), which is headed by the Dole Food Company Corp., established
in California (United States of America). The Dole group is engaged worldwide in the business of producing, processing, distributing
and marketing, among other things, fresh fruit and vegetables, including bananas.
The applicants are registered as traditional operators A/B in Italy and Germany, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 896/2001.
On 6 June 2001, the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Federal Agriculture and Food Authority), the relevant
national authority for the Federal Republic of Germany, informed Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. (‘Dole’) of its share of
the A/B tariff quota for traditional operators for the second half of 2001, as calculated in accordance with Regulations No
896/2001 and No 1121/2001 (‘the contested regulations’).
On 8 June 2001, the Ministerio del commercio con l’estero (Ministry of External Trade), the relevant national authority for
the Italian Republic, informed Comafrica SpA (‘Comafrica’) of its share of the aforesaid A/B tariff quota for the second half
of 2001, as calculated in accordance with the contested regulations.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 June 2001, the applicants brought the present action.
By separate document lodged at the Registry on 21 June 2001, the applicants applied for interim relief in the form of an order
suspending the contested regulations in so far as they affect them and, alternatively, a suspension with effect
erga omnes
.
By order of 12 September 2001 in Case T-139/01 R
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
[2001] ECR II-2415, the President of the Court of First Instance dismissed that application and reserved the costs.
By a document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 October 2001, the Kingdom of Spain applied for leave to intervene in
the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission. The Commission and the applicants lodged
their observations in respect of that application on 18 and 22 October 2001 respectively.
By a document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 25 October 2001, Simba SpA (‘Simba’) applied for leave to intervene in
the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the applicants. The applicants and the Commission lodged
their observations in respect of that application on 9 and 23 November 2001 respectively.
By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 22 October 2001, the applicants applied for confidential treatment of certain
parts of their application vis-à-vis the Kingdom of Spain. By letter lodged at the Registry on 9 November 2001, they made
the same application in respect of Simba.
By order of the Fifth Chamber of 27 February 2002 (Case T-139/01
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
[2002] ECR II-799), the Court granted the Kingdom of Spain permission to intervene in support of the form of order sought
by the Commission. It also granted Simba permission to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicants.
As Simba’s application to intervene was not lodged until after the expiry of the period referred to in Article 116(6) of the
Rules of Procedure, Simba was permitted to submit its observations at the oral hearing, on the basis of the Report for the
Hearing to be sent to it. Lastly, the Court acceded to the application for confidential treatment vis-à-vis the Kingdom of
Spain.
The Kingdom of Spain lodged its statement in intervention on 21 March 2002, in response to which the applicants and the Commission
submitted their observations on 5 June 2002.
Upon reading the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure
and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure, requested the main parties to reply in writing to certain questions,
which they did within the prescribed time-limit.
The parties presented oral argument and replied to the questions of the Court at the hearing on 18 November 2003.
Forms of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
–
declare the action admissible;
–
annul the contested regulations in so far as they affect them or, in the alternative, annul those regulations
erga omnes
;
–
order the Commission to pay them compensation for the damage suffered following the adoption of the contested regulations;
–
order the Commission to pay the costs.
The Commission contends that the Court should:
–
dismiss the claim for annulment as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded;
–
dismiss the claim for compensation as unfounded;
–
order the applicants to pay the costs.
The Kingdom of Spain contends that the Court should:
–
dismiss the claim for annulment as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded;
–
dismiss the claim for compensation as unfounded;
–
order the applicants to pay the costs.
Simba claims that the Court should:
–
annul the contested regulations;
–
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Admissibility of the claim for annulment
Arguments of the parties
Regulation No 896/2001
The applicants submit in the first place that they are individually concerned by Regulation No 896/2001.
First, they assert that that regulation should be regarded as a bundle of individual decisions.
They point out in that regard that the group of operators defined by Article 4(1) of Regulation No 896/2001, of which they
are a part, constitutes a ‘fixed and closed class’. That provision only applies to those traditional operators with reference
quantities under category A(a) for the period 1994 to 1996 ‘as taken into account for 1998’.
The applicants maintain that when the Commission adopted Regulation No 896/2001, it knew the names and total number of the
operators belonging to that group as well as their individual reference quantities for 1994 to 1996 since they had been registered
in 1998. The Commission therefore knew ‘which operators would be entitled to licences and the level of that entitlement’.
The applicants assert that the effect of that regulation was to fix directly the final reference quantity of each of those
operators because Article 4(1) of that regulation provides that that quantity corresponds to the reference quantity based
on the primary imports made in 1994 to 1996 and taken into account for 1998 and that neither the Commission nor the relevant
authorities of the Member States are permitted to amend or correct those figures. The applicants put forward the same arguments
in support of their claim that the operators knew their final reference quantities which would be allocated to them once Regulation
No 896/2001 was adopted.
According to the applicants, the fact that an adjustment coefficient may subsequently be applied is irrelevant in that this
‘does not alter the basic premiss that each individual reference quantity was fixed in 1998’. The Commission cannot rely either
on the fact that it could not foresee in advance which operators would submit a written application. The Commission confuses
the individual nature of the rights granted by Regulation No 896/2001 with the choice belonging to the beneficiary as to whether
or not to exercise those rights.
Lastly, the applicants submit that the Commission cannot base an argument on the judgment in Case C-73/97 P
France
v
Comafrica and Others
[1999] ECR I-185, since the case giving rise to that judgment did not concern a challenge to an implementing regulation of
the Commission, such as Regulation No 896/2001, but to a regulation setting the standard reduction coefficient for 1994. They
add that, contrary to the situation in that case, Regulation No 896/2001 does not in any way authorise the Commission or the
relevant national authorities subsequently to change the operators’ individual reference quantity.
Secondly, the applicants submit that Regulation No 896/2001 contains specific provisions which clearly show that it was not
drafted in abstract terms and that it expressly took account of ‘individual traditional operators’ who ‘have been specifically
identified’.
Thirdly, the applicants submit that they are two of the ‘four selected US operators’ mentioned in a document submitted by
the Commission in the course of the negotiations resulting in the US-EU Agreement, appearing in Annex 7 to the application,
which ‘determines the total reference quantities of four operators in the regulation’. They claim that that agreement was
‘implemented into EC law’ by Regulation No 896/2001 and that the purpose of those two measures was to ensure that the ‘four
selected US operators’ could continue to supply a certain quantity of bananas to the Community by granting them a certain
number of import licences. The US trade representative negotiated the settlement of the dispute relating to the bananas COM
with the intention of ‘protecting’ those four operators. The applicants insist that the US-EU Agreement constitutes a negotiated
settlement between the United States of America and the Community.
Fourthly, the applicants allege that they are distinguishable from all other persons affected by Regulation No 896/2001. In
support of that assertion they allege that:
–
they are traditional operators, not non-traditional ones;
–
they belong to that ‘small group’ of traditional operators which were allocated category A(a) reference quantities in 1998
as opposed to those operators which were allocated category A(b) or A(c) reference quantities in 1998;
–
Regulation No 896/2001 is specifically designed to exclude those operators who were holders of category A(b) or A(c) reference
quantities in 1998 and ‘limit the number of entitled operators to the small group of category A(a) operators’.
The applicants claim in the second place that they are directly concerned by Regulation No 896/2002 in that there is no act
of any intermediate authority involved in the determination of their rights.
They point out in that regard that there is a key distinction between that regulation and the regulations at issue in the
cases giving rise to the judgments in
France
v
Comafrica and Others
, cited above, and the judgment in Joined Cases T-198/95, T-171/96, T-230/97, T-174/98 and T-225/99
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
[2001] ECR II-1975, in that the latter regulations contained all the provisions to make it possible to check whether the
operators’ applications for reference quantities contained any errors and, if necessary, to correct those errors. They state
that such errors could be corrected at any stage of the procedure up to the setting of the adjustment coefficient and that,
when those regulations were published, the applicants for import licences were therefore unsure whether the reference quantity
figures sought would be subsequently changed. On the other hand, the applicants claim that when Regulation No 896/2001 was
adopted and/or published, all the applicants knew to what reference quantity they were entitled, without any possibility of
subsequent alteration by the Commission or the relevant national authorities, ‘even if they suspected, knew or ought to have
known those figures to be inaccurate’.
The applicants add that the present case may also be distinguished from that giving rise to the judgment in Case C-354/87
Weddel
v
Commission
[1990] ECR I-3847). They explain that in that case, the Member States set the final reference quantity, whereas, in the present
case, the reference quantity was already set by Regulation No 896/2001 itself, leaving only an adjustment coefficient to be
applied in the event that the sum of the reference quantities applied for was not equal to the total available quota.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Spain contend in the first place that the applicants are not individually concerned by Regulation
No 896/2001.
Firstly, they point out that that regulation is a legislative act of general application and cannot be regarded as a bundle
of individual decisions. It lays down general rules applying to all operators seeking to obtain a reference quantity for the
importation of bananas in 2001. Moreover, it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories
of persons considered in the abstract.
The Commission challenges the applicants’ claim that Regulation No 896/2001 applies to a ‘fixed and closed class’ of operators,
whose names and details are known to the Commission. It points out that it is settled case-law that the general applicability
and therefore the legislative nature of a measure are not called into question by the fact that it is possible to determine
more or less exactly the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time, as long as it applies
to them by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question in relation to its purpose
(judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
, paragraph 100). However, Regulation No 896/2001 applies to the applicants and to all traditional operators ‘by virtue of
the fact that they have applied for a reference quantity with the intention of ensuring that the tariff quota is not exceeded’.
The Commission adds that, when adopting the regulation, it did not know precisely the category of the operators who would
apply for a reference quantity under the 2001 regime. It points out in that regard that some of the operators who had sought
a reference quantity for 1998 had, in the meantime, ceased to trade or had merged with other operators and that it had no
means of knowing who their successors were. Similarly, some operators may have opted to register as non-traditional category
A/B operators, rather than traditional operators under that category. The Commission also states that Article 4 of Regulation
No 896/2001 does not automatically allocate a reference quantity to each traditional operator who had received a reference
quantity in 1998 since operators were required to submit a written application to that end by 11 May 2001. It submits that
it could not predict the effect that Regulation No 896/2001 would have on individual operators since the reference quantity
to be allocated to each of them depended on the overall level of applications. Thus, it notes that the reference quantities
applied for by traditional category A/B operators amounted to 1 964 000 tonnes whereas, if all the traditional A/B operators
who were entitled to apply had done so, that figure would have been 1 971 000 tonnes.
Secondly, the Commission submits that the applicants do not specify which provisions of Regulation No 896/2001 clearly show
that it was not drafted in abstract terms. In any event, that regulation contains no provision which could either expressly
or impliedly identify the applicants or any other specific operator or entail their being treated differently from any other
traditional operator.
Thirdly, the Commission denies that the US-EU Agreement was negotiated specifically to protect the position of ‘four selected
[US] operators’, including the applicants. It acknowledges that the 2001 regime was adopted partly to reflect the ‘agreement
entered into’ with the United States of America, but points out that it is clear that it was intended above all to enforce
the provisions of Regulation No 404/93, and, ultimately, Article 33 EC. It states that it is not able to confirm whether the
US trade representative negotiated the settlement of the dispute over the bananas COM with the aim of achieving a particular
outcome favourable to the applicants. In any event, the position adopted by a third country in the course of negotiations
has no bearing on the question whether an applicant is individually concerned by a regulation. It further stresses that the
negotiations between the Community and the United States of America were ‘political negotiations in the public international
law sphere’ and that the applicants were not in any way involved in them.
Fourthly, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain contend that the applicants have not produced other evidence to show that
they are affected by Regulation No 896/2001 by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances
in which they are differentiated from all other persons.
Fifthly, the Commission observes that, contrary to what the applicants imply in their reply, it does not place any reliance
on the judgment in
France
v
Comafrica and Others
in order to support its assertion that the latter are not individually concerned by Regulation No 896/2001.
The Commission contends in the second place that the applicants are not directly concerned by Regulation No 896/2001 since
their legal position, so far as concerns their reference quantity, may be defined at the earliest only once all the applications
for the allocation of reference quantities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 896/2001 have been submitted and processed
and an adjustment coefficient established.
Regulation No 1121/2001
The applicants claim that they are directly and individually concerned by Regulation No 1121/2001. They consider that they
satisfy the criteria for admissibility defined by the Court in its judgments in
Weddel
v
Commission
and
France
v
Comafrica and Others
.
They explain in this regard that:
–
the adjustment coefficient referred to by that regulation is calculated using two variables: the total reference quantity
and the total available quota;
–
the total reference quantity is the sum of the individual reference quantities of each of the traditional operators;
–
the Commission was aware of those individual reference quantities before setting the adjustment coefficient;
–
the publication of the adjustment coefficient enabled each operator directly to know its final reference quantity and its
entitlement to import licences since it knew, before that coefficient was set, the reference quantity for 1998 and that quantity
could not be changed.
They assert that, unlike the 1993 and 1999 regimes, the 2001 regime does not provide any system for checking and correcting
the information supplied. They add that ‘the adjustment coefficient was only applicable to those operators who had applied
for licences on the basis of their reference quantity’. In their view, ‘it was a wholly closed group’ and it involved ‘the
application of whatever applicable coefficient was applied to known operators and known reference quantities’.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Spain submit that the action for annulment, in so far as it is directed against Regulation
No 1121/2001, must be held inadmissible in view of the judgments in
France
v
Comafrica and Others
and
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
.
The Commission accepts that the 1993 and 1999 regimes, at issue in the cases which gave rise to the judgments cited above,
differ from the 2001 regime but it considers that the reasoning which prompted the Community Court to find the applications
in those cases inadmissible also apply in the present case. It observes in that regard that ‘the procedure for determining
the coefficient and its effect on operators are basically the same in the 2001 regime as in the earlier regimes’. It explains
that, in each regime, the reduction/adjustment coefficient is fixed by dividing the amount of the total available quota by
the sum of the reference quantities for which valid applications have been made, and is applied by the relevant authorities
in the Member States to the reference quantity for each operator as calculated by those authorities. Those same authorities
then notify each operator of the reference quantity established at the end of the financial year.
Referring to paragraph 106 of the judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
, the Commission submits that the purpose and legal effect of the adoption of the adjustment coefficient was not to decide
the outcome of the individual applications lodged with the relevant national authorities but to address the objective factual
situation of an excess of the total Community reference quantity over the tariff quota. In its judgment in
Weddel
v
Commission
, whilst the Court acknowledged that the contested regulation consisted of a bundle of individual decisions, it was because,
by adopting that regulation, the Commission had in fact decided on the treatment to be given to the individual operators’
applications, unlike in the present case.
The Commission adds that, in its order in Case C-351/99 P
Eridania and Others
v
Council
[2001] ECR I-5007, paragraphs 53 to 55, the Court confirmed that the judgment in
Weddel
v
Commission
only dealt with certain specific situations in which individual rights were granted. However, in the present case, according
to the Commission, the allocation of reference quantities to the applicants does not confer on them any right to import bananas
but merely limits the volume of bananas that they could import under tariff quotas. It points out that conversion of the adjusted
reference quantity into import licences and use of them require that an application for import licences be submitted.
The Commission further observes that when it set the adjustment coefficient in question it did not have data on the individual
reference quantities in fact claimed by each operator in 2001, since the Member States were only required to communicate the
sum of those quantities. It could not therefore know exactly what effect setting the adjustment coefficient would have on
the individual operators.
Lastly, the Commission contends that, should it become apparent that the data on which the reference quantities for 2001 are
based are flawed, despite their already having been the subject of extensive checking previously, the Member States would
be obliged to make appropriate corrections thereto. It concludes from this that, ‘while major changes to the “provisional”
reference quantity of an operator may be less likely than in previous years, the fact remains that simple application of the
adjustment coefficient to the reference quantity applied for will not inevitably permit an operator to calculate its final
reference quantity for 2001’.
Findings of the Court
The fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC provides that any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision
addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another
person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
The nature of the contested regulations
The applicants call into question the legislative nature of the contested regulations and submit that they should be regarded
as a bundle of individual decisions.
It should be noted in this connection that, according to settled case-law, the criterion for distinguishing between a regulation
and a decision must be sought in the general application or otherwise of the act in question (see the orders of the Court
of Justice in Case C-10/95 P
Asocarne
v
Council
[1995] ECR I-4149, paragraph 28, and in Case C-87/95 P
CNPAAP
v
Council
[1996] ECR I-2003, paragraph 33). A measure is of general application if it applies to objectively determined situations
and produces legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in general and in the abstract (see Case T-482/93
Weber
v
Commission
[1996] ECR II-609, paragraph 55, and the case-law there cited).
In the present case, as regards, first, Regulation No 896/2001, it cannot be denied that this is a legislative measure of
general application (orders of the Court of First Instance in Case T-178/01
Di Lenardo
v
Commission
, not published in the ECR, paragraph 47, and Case T‑179/01
Dilexport
v
Commission
, not published in the ECR, paragraph 47). The rules it contains are stated in general terms, they apply to objectively determined
situations and they produce legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in general and in the abstract.
It should also be noted that, according to Article 1, the purpose of that regulation is to lay down ‘detailed rules for applying
the arrangements for importing bananas under the tariff quotas provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation [No 404/93, as
amended by Regulation No 216/2001], and also outside those quotas’. It was adopted by the Commission on the basis of Article
20 of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 216/2001. That article confers on the Commission the power to adopt
detailed rules for applying Title IV of that regulation, including rules on the management of the tariff quotas referred to
in Article 18.
Article 2 of Regulation No 896/2001 provides that 83% of those tariff quotas are to be made available to traditional operators
and 17% to non-traditional operators. Those two categories of operator are defined on the basis of purely objective criteria
set out in Articles 3 and 6 of that regulation, and are not in any way based on assessments linked to the specific position
of each operator (see, to that effect, the orders in
Di Lenardo
v
Commission
, paragraph 46, and
Dilexport
v
Commission
, paragraph 46). The same applies in respect of the definitions of ‘traditional operator A/B’ and ‘traditional operator C’
in Article 3 of Regulation No 896/2001, which takes account of the minimum quantity of primary imports of third-country bananas
and/or non-traditional ACP bananas, in the first case, or of traditional ACP bananas, in the second case, in accordance with
the definitions in Article 16 of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 1637/98.
Regulation No 896/2001 defines the rules for admission to those various categories of tariff quota on the basis of general
and abstract information, without any regard for the situation of the individual operators such as the applicants. Essentially,
it lays down in general and abstract terms the way in which the reference quantity for traditional operators and the annual
allocation to non-traditional operators are to be determined, together with the registration procedure for the latter category
of operators, and sets out the rules for issuing import licences.
Lastly, Regulation No 896/2001 sets out, again in general and abstract terms, the rules applicable to imports of bananas outside
the tariff quotas.
The applicants’ argument to the effect that the regulation contains specific provisions which show that it was not drafted
in abstract terms and that it expressly took account of ‘each of the traditional operators who have been expressly identified’
is therefore wholly unfounded. It should further be noted that the applicants make no attempt to identify the particular provisions
to which they thus refer.
Assuming that the applicants rely on Article 4(1) of Regulation No 896/2001 in this regard, it should be noted that that provision
is obviously a measure of general application. It sets out in general and abstract terms the way in which the reference quantity
for traditional operators A/B is determined by stipulating, first, that the person concerned must submit a written application
to that effect by 11 May 2001 at the latest and, second, that that quantity is to be calculated using ‘the average of primary
imports of third-country bananas and/or non-traditional ACP bananas during 1994, 1995 and 1996 taken into account for 1998
for the purposes of administering the tariff quota for imports of third-country bananas and non-traditional ACP bananas, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 19(2) of Regulation … No 404/93 applicable in 1998 to the category of operators
referred to in paragraph 1(a) of that article’. Those criteria apply without distinction to all traditional operators A/B,
who are defined in general and abstract terms and on the basis of purely objective data in Article 3 of Regulation No 896/2001
(see paragraph 90 above). It is therefore undeniably a measure which applies to an objectively defined situation and entails
legal effects in respect of categories of persons defined in general and abstract terms. It concerns not only the applicants
but also every other economic agent in a similar situation.
That conclusion cannot be undermined by the applicants’ argument that when the Commission adopted Regulation No 896/2001,
it knew the names and total number of operators covered by Article 4(1) of that regulation. In the first place, that argument
is unfounded. When that regulation was adopted, the Commission did not, and could not know, with certainty, which operators
would submit applications for allocation of a reference quantity within the time-limit expiring on 11 May 2001. In particular
it could not assume that all traditional operators A/B with a category A(a) reference quantity for 1998 would apply for a
reference quantity under the 2001 regime. Moreover, as the Commission rightly points out, some operators who had obtained
a reference quantity for 1998 might have subsequently ceased trading or merged with other operators. In the second place,
the applicants’ argument is any way irrelevant. Even if it were shown that the persons to whom Article 4(1) of Regulation
No 896/2001 applies were identifiable when it was adopted, its legislative scope cannot be questioned given that, as stated
at paragraph 94 above, that provision refers only to objective situations of fact or law (see, to that effect, the orders
in
CNPAAP
v
Council
, paragraph 35, and Case T‑113/99
Galileo and Galileo International
v
Council
[2000] ECR II-4141, paragraph 47, confirmed by the order in Case C-96/01 P
Galileo and Galileo International
v
Council
[2002] ECR I-4025).
Nor are the applicants entitled to claim that Article 4(1) of Regulation No 896/2001 had the effect of directly fixing the
final reference quantity for each of the traditional operators A/B and of enabling them, and the Commission, to know that
reference quantity from the time that regulation was adopted. At that stage, the reference quantity referred to by that provision
could only be provisional in that, if there were to be a discrepancy between the total reference quantities requested by the
traditional operators A/B and the available tariff quota quantities, that reference quantity would be subject to an adjustment
coefficient set by the Commission (see Article 5(2) of Regulation No 896/2001). However, when Regulation No 896/2001 was adopted,
neither the Commission nor the traditional operators A/B could foresee that there would be such a discrepancy or, a fortiori,
its extent given that, as noted at paragraph 95 above, those operators had until 11 May 2001 to submit their applications
for a reference quantity and there were no grounds for assuming that they would all do so. In the present case, as the Commission
stated without contradiction by the applicants, the sum of the reference quantities sought by the traditional operators A/B
within that time-limit was lower than it would have been had all the traditional operators A/B entitled to make such an application
in fact done so.
Secondly, the applicants dispute the legislative nature of Regulation No 1121/2001, relying, essentially, on the principles
laid down by the Court of Justice in
Weddel
v
Commission
and
France
v
Comafrica and Others
.
First, they insist that that regulation only applies to a fixed and closed class of legal persons to which they belong.
It is true that Regulation No 1121/2001 in fact applies only to operators who submitted a written application to the relevant
national authorities in the past, that is, by 11 May 2001 at the latest; any application made after that date cannot be taken
into account. Moreover, Regulation No 1121/2001 applies only to operators who satisfy a number of procedural and substantive
conditions.
However, it is settled case-law that the general scope of a measure is not called in question by the fact that it is possible
to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment with a greater or lesser
decree of precision as long as it is established that it is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined
by the measure in relation to the objective of the latter (Case C-209/94 P
Buralux and Others
v
Council
[1996] ECR I-615, paragraph 24, and the order in Case T-183/94
Cantina cooperativa fra produttori vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and Others
v
Commission
[1995] ECR II‑1941, paragraph 48).
That is indeed the case here. Regulation No 1121/2001 seeks in general terms to ensure the proper implementation of the rules
for the management of the tariff quota regime set up by Regulation No 896/2001. That regime is based on a division of the
tariff quotas between two categories of operator, namely traditional and non-traditional operators and on separate management
rules for A and B tariff quotas, on the one hand, and for the C tariff quota on the other. The purpose of Regulation No 1121/2001
is to make an overall adjustment of the reference quantities sought by the traditional operators A/B and by the traditional
operator C to the available quantities of the A/B and C tariff quotas. Thus, in respect of traditional operators A/B, Article
1(1) of that regulation sets an adjustment coefficient of 1.07883 to be applied to their individual reference quantity because
the sum of the reference quantities applied for under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 896/2001 turned out to be lower than the
available quantities of the tariff quotas.
Second, the applicants emphasise the differences between the 1993 and 1999 regimes, on the one hand, and the 2001 regime on
the other. More particularly, they submit that, unlike the two other regimes, the 2001 regime provides no means by which the
Commission or the relevant national authorities can check and, if necessary, correct the reference quantity sought by each
operator.
It should be noted in this connection that the 1993 and 1999 regimes do in fact differ from the 2001 regime as regards the
determination of the reference quantity for the category A operators (in the 1993 regime) or traditional operators (in the
1999 and 2001 regimes). As was explained in paragraph 103 of the judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission,
under the 1993 and 1999 regimes, the Commission and the relevant national authorities actively carried out checks and, where
necessary, corrected the operators’ individual reference quantities so as to eliminate cases of double counting. By contrast,
in the case of the 2001 regime, the reference quantities of the traditional operators A/B are fixed on the basis of historical
data relating to primary imports, already checked and, where necessary, corrected under the preceding regimes. Accordingly,
neither Article 4(1) of Regulation No 896/2001 nor any other provision of that regulation makes express provision for the
Commission or the relevant national authorities to carry out further verification or correction of those data. Of course,
an operator could not legitimately base an application for the allocation of a reference quantity on manifestly erroneous
or fraudulent data. If evidence of such error or fraud were found, the Commission or the relevant national authorities would
have to make the necessary corrections, even in the absence of any express provision to that effect in Regulation No 896/2001.
In the present case, it appears however that no new correction was in fact made in respect of data relating to traditional
operators A/B. The only example that the Commission could give on that subject in response to a written question from the
Court is not convincing, as it concerns a case in which it had decided to correct the total amount notified to it by the French
authorities, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Regulation No 896/2001, following the discovery not of a fraudulent or exaggerated
declaration by an operator or an incidence of double counting, but an error of interpretation on the part of those authorities
of Article 4(1) of the same regulation.
However, it cannot be inferred from the abovementioned differences between the 1993 and 1999 regimes, on the one hand, and
the 2001 regime, on the other, that Regulation No 1121/2001 should be regarded as a bundle of individual decisions concerning
each of the traditional operators A/B, including the applicants.
As already stated at paragraph 101 above, Regulation No 1121/2001 was adopted in the light, not of the specific situation
of traditional operators A/B, but of an objective factual situation, namely the fact that the sum of the reference quantities
notified globally to the Commission by the Member States pursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation No 896/2001 was less than
the available amount of the tariff quotas. In other words, the adjustment coefficient of 1.07883 set by Regulation No 1121/2001
is the result of a simple mathematical calculation and not of an assessment of the individual situation of each traditional
operator A/B. It applies equally to all traditional operators A/B who had applied for a reference quantity before 11 May 2001.
The purpose and legal effect of the adoption of Regulation No 1121/2001 are not therefore to decide on the treatment of the
individual applications lodged by operators with the national competent authorities (see, to that effect, the judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
, paragraph 106).
It must be concluded from the foregoing that the contested regulations are legislative in nature and of general application.
The applicants’ standing to bring an action
It should be noted that a measure of general application such as a regulation may, in certain circumstances, be of individual
concern to certain natural or legal persons and thus in the nature of a decision in their regard (see, in particular, Case
C-358/89
Extramet Industrie
v
Council
[1991] ECR I-2501, paragraph 13; Case C-309/89
Codorniu
v
Council
[1994] ECR I-1853, paragraph 19; and Case C-50/00 P
Unión de Pequeños Agricultores
v
Council
[2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 36). This is so where the measure in question affects specific natural or legal persons by reason
of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons
and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision (see, in particular, Case 25/62
Plaumann
v
Commission
[1963] ECR 95, 107; Case C‑452/98
Nederlandse Antillen
v
Council
[2001] ECR I-8973, paragraph 60; and
Unión de Pequeños Agricultores
v
Council,
paragraph 36).
In the present case, as regards, first, Regulation No 896/2001, it has been found at paragraphs 88 to 92 and 94 above that
the rules it contains, in particular in Article 4(1), are set out in general terms, apply to objectively defined situations
and entail legal effects in respect of categories of persons defined in general and abstract terms. That regulation concerns
the applicants only in their objective capacity as traditional operators A/B, on the same basis as every other operator in
that category.
That conclusion is not undermined by the applicants’ argument based on the table in Annex 7 to the application. That table
shows, for the years 1989 to 1996, the total amount of the reference quantities for category A(a) operators, that is, the
primary importers, the total amount of the reference quantities for ‘four selected operators’ and the percentage arising from
the relationship between the second and first amounts. The Commission does not dispute that ‘the four selected operators’
are the applicants and two undertakings belonging to the Chiquita group. However, even if shown to be true, the fact that
the overall data for those operators were examined by the Commission and the US trade representative during the negotiations
to resolve the dispute over the bananas COM does not in any way imply that Regulation No 896/2001 was adopted so as to bring
about a particular result in favour of those operators and, in particular, to ensure that they were allocated a certain number
of import licences, as the applicants allege. Similarly, the mere fact that the Commission possessed information about the
primary imports made, inter alia, by the applicants does not suffice either to distinguish them for the purposes of Regulation
No 896/2001 from every other operator concerned by that regulation.
It is necessary to distinguish between two situations. First, where, as in the present case, the legislature examines market
information and data in order to ensure that the market situation is correctly taken into account in the provisions and objectives
of the measure it intends to adopt, and, second, where the legislature adopts a measure so as to bring about a specific result
in favour of particular persons, which is not the situation in the present case.
The applicants cannot rely either on the fact that they belong to the traditional operators’ category, as opposed to that
of non-traditional operators, and to the ‘small group’ of operators with category A(a) reference quantities in 1998, in order
to claim that they are distinct from all other operators concerned by Regulation No 896/2001 (see paragraph 63 above).
As is apparent from paragraphs 13 and 90 above, it is precisely on the primary distinction between traditional operators and
non-traditional operators that the system for allocating tariff quotas introduced by Regulation No 896/2001 is based. Those
two categories of operator are categories of person defined in general and abstract terms (see paragraph 90 above). The objective
quality of the applicants as traditional operators does not therefore distinguish them for the purposes of Regulation No 896/2001.
The same conclusion applies in respect of the applicants’ argument that they belong to the ‘small group of operators’ with
category A(a) reference quantities in 1998. Whilst it is true that, under Regulation No 896/2001, only the primary importers
may be treated as traditional operators and that the latter’s reference quantity is fixed on the basis of the average of primary
imports made from 1994 to 1996 and taken into account in 1998, it remains the case that those are general and abstract criteria
(see paragraphs 90 and 94 above). The evidence put forward by the applicants does not therefore distinguish them.
Second, as regards Regulation No 1121/2001, it suffices to find that the applicants neither show nor allege that they are
affected by that regulation by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates
them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee.
It follows from the foregoing considerations that the contested regulations are measures of general application and that the
applicants are not affected by them by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation
which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually. The applicants cannot therefore be regarded
as individually concerned by the contested regulations. Since they do not satisfy one of the conditions for admissibility
under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, it is not necessary to consider whether the contested regulations directly concern
them.
It follows that, in so far as it seeks the annulment of the contested regulations, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible.
The claim for compensation
Arguments of the parties
The applicants submit that, by providing in Regulation No 896/2001 that the reference quantity for traditional operators A/B
is to be established on the basis of the average of primary imports of third-country bananas and/or non-traditional ACP bananas
during 1994, 1995 and 1996 taken into account in 1998 for the purposes of managing the tariff quota for imports of third-country
bananas and non-traditional ACP bananas and, in the light of the total of the reference quantities thus determined, Regulation
No 1121/2001, the Commission acted unlawfully with harmful consequences. They consider that the conditions for the Community
to incur non-contractual liability are met.
First, the applicants submit, primarily, that the contested regulations are not legislative measures involving economic policy
choices and that, by adopting them, the Commission was guilty of an ‘administrative failure’.
They allege that the data relating to primary imports of bananas between 1994 and 1996, taken into account for 1998, are seriously
defective. In many cases, the quantities declared at the time by the operators were fraudulently inflated by them or were
counted twice. In their application, they consider that the average margin of error (‘overclaims in relation to licences used’)
for 1994, 1995 and 1996 is 23.98%. In their reply, they reduce that margin to 13.6%.
The applicants submit that the Commission knew that those data were inaccurate and that it in fact admitted an average margin
of error of about 11% in the course of the interim proceedings. They criticise the fact that the Commission nevertheless decided
to use those data in the contested regulations, and without making provision for itself or for the Member States to verify
them and, if necessary, correct them. According to the applicants there is no legal or practical impediment to such verification
or correction. In so doing, the Commission failed to carry out its duty ‘to determine the adjustment coefficient in accordance
with the law’ and has not lawfully managed the bananas COM.
The applicants consider that the Commission cannot rely on the fact that the 1994 to 1996 reference period was the last period
for which it possessed sufficiently verified data on primary imports. They submit that the margin of error for 1994 was particularly
high and that, if the Commission had chosen the three-year period 1995 to 1997, the average margin of error would have been
smaller. They dispute the Commission’s assertion that the years 1994 to 1996 were the most recent years for which data on
primary imports were available, claiming that such data were also available for 1997 and 1998, even if they had not yet been
verified by the Commission and the relevant national authorities. Lastly, they consider that the Commission cannot derive
support from the findings of the Court of First Instance in paragraph 149 of its judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission.
Should the Court find that the contested regulations are legislative measures involving economic policy choices, the applicants
submit, in the alternative, that the Commission has committed a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of Community
law for the protection of individuals. They allege, more particularly, an infringement of the principle of good administration
or of ‘the principle according to which the application of Community law ought to be certain and foreseeable’ (see the judgment
of the Court of Justice in Case 326/85
Netherlands
v
Commission
[1987] ECR 5091). According to the applicants ‘an institution shall not adopt an act in reliance on facts which it knows,
or manifestly ought to have known, to be wrong, particularly when such act will affect the rights of individuals’.
Second, the applicants claim to have suffered damage by reason of the adoption of the contested regulations consisting, first,
in the loss of the right to import certain quantities of bananas.
Thus, in their application, they consider that in 2001 they lost the right to import the following quantities of bananas:
[…]
(2)

tonnes in the case of Comafrica and […] tonnes in the case of Dole. They arrive at those figures on the basis of the following
calculations:
–
the overall available tariff quota for 2001 was 2 553 000 tonnes;
–
the available tariff quota for traditional operators A/B was 83% of that quantity, or 2 118 990 tonnes;
–
during the reference period 1994 to 1996, import licences were used in respect of 1 590 050 tonnes;
–
the adjustment coefficient should therefore have been set at 1.3327;
–
the average of the imports made by Comafrica in the reference period was […] tonnes;
–
by applying the adjustment coefficient of 1.3327 to that quantity, Comafrica was entitled to submit an application for licences
in respect of […] tonnes;
–
by applying the adjustment coefficient of 1.07883 laid down by Regulation No 1121/2001 to the abovementioned quantity of […]
tonnes, Comafrica was entitled to submit an application for licences in respect of […] tonnes only;
–
the average of the imports made by Dole during the reference period was […] tonnes;
–
by applying the adjustment coefficient of 1.3327 to that quantity, Dole was entitled to submit an application for licences
in respect of […] tonnes;
–
by applying the adjustment coefficient of 1.07883 laid down by Regulation No 1121/2001 to the abovementioned quantity of […]
tonnes, Dole was entitled to submit an application for licences in respect of […] tonnes only.
In their reply, the applicants admit that their estimate of the number of overclaims, as stated in the application, does not
take account of imports into Austria, Finland and Sweden (see paragraph 133 below). They allege that the Commission admits
‘an [average] overclaim level of 11.24%’ for the years 1994 to 1996 and suggests that that percentage serve as a basis for
calculating their loss. Moreover, they refer to the data and information on the loss contained in their application for interim
measures, and propose to update them.
In their observations on the statement in intervention of the Kingdom of Spain, the applicants suggest updating the data and
information contained in their application. Lastly, in their reply to one of the written questions which the Court had put
to them (see paragraph 49 above), the applicants recognise that they forgot to take into account, in their calculation of
that first head of damage, the provisions of Article 28(2) of Regulation No 896/2001 and adjust the figures in their application
as a result.
Second, the applicants claim a ‘loss of the future entitlement in respect of lost volumes’.
Third, they submit that the use of unlawful reference quantities also led to a reduction of their market share.
Lastly, the applicants seek an order that interest be added to such compensation as they may receive.
Thirdly, in respect of causation, they submit that, in the absence of the unlawful measures adopted by the Commission under
Regulations No 896/2001 and No 1121/2001, they could have obtained higher reference quantities and, as a result, a greater
entitlement to import licences.
The Commission rejects those claims.
First, it submits that it cannot be criticised for any unlawful conduct. It emphasises that it has a wide margin of discretion
in relation to the common agricultural policy and can therefore only be held to be non-contractually liable as a result of
a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
The Commission denies that the average margin of error is 23.98% for the three-year period and is greater than 50% for 1994.
It notes, more particularly, that the figures put forward by the applicants for 1994 do not take account of the imports to
Austria, Finland and Sweden which, at the time, were not members of the Community.
The Commission, referring to Article 19(1) of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 216/2001, states that the
tariff quotas could be administered by applying the method based on taking into account traditional trade flows, which it
elected to do. It explains that it thus decided to have regard to the historical data available and that the best data available
were necessarily those which had already been notified and verified for the purpose of allocating reference quantities in
earlier years. The years 1994 to 1996 were the most recent for which such data were available, 1998 being the last year in
which the 1993 regime was applicable and in respect of which data on primary imports had been used. The Commission insists
that those data had been carefully examined and corrected and emphasises that the figures given by it ‘in relation to the
possible level of inaccuracies in the 1994-96 figures’ had already been accepted by the Court of First Instance in its judgment
in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
. It further states that use of the data for the years 1994 to 1996 allowed the new and essentially transitional system to
be established rapidly and that it was considered appropriate to retain a three-year reference period, as before, since that
levelled out fluctuations in the banana market from one year to the next.
The Commission challenges the substance of the applicants’ claim that data on primary imports were also available for 1997
and 1998. It states that, by fax of 24 May 2000, it requested all Member States to provide it with data for quantities traded
by primary importers in 1997 and 1998 or, where appropriate, to let it know if such data were unavailable. Seven Member States
did not reply. With regard to the remainder of the Member States, the situation was as follows:
–
the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Finland provided overall figures on primary imports without breaking them down by
operator;
–
the Republic of Austria provided details on the overall level of imports only;
–
the other Member States, with the exception of the Italian Republic, replied that data provided by their operators for 1997
were never verified by the competent authorities, while the 1998 data were never collected;
–
no data for 1997 were available for the Portuguese Republic;
–
only the Italian Republic was able to provide data, albeit incomplete, for 1997 and 1998, pointing out that this was a simple
transmission of raw data by the Italian operators which had not been verified by the relevant authorities.
As for the complaint that the Commission did not reserve for itself the possibility of verifying the accuracy of the data
notified, the Commission points out that the system for establishing reference quantities provided for by Regulation No 896/2001
does not depend on applications based on new data, but on data for the period from 1994 to 1996. Those data had already been
thoroughly checked by the Member States and the Commission, as the Court of First Instance found in its judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
. It states that whilst it is true that those data were not perfect, in that judgment, the Court nevertheless found that the
reasons put forward justifying those imperfections were valid and accepted that use of that data was not manifestly inappropriate.
As regards the criticisms levelled by the applicants against Regulation No 1121/2001, the Commission contends that they are
based on the erroneous hypothesis that Regulation No 896/2001 is unlawful.
Second, as regards the loss alleged, the Commission submits, first, that the applicants’ claim that their market share has
decreased is vague in the extreme and should therefore be dismissed as inadmissible. As for the damage in the form of the
loss of entitlement to import certain quantities of bananas, it argues that ‘the reference quantities only provide for an
opportunity to apply for import licences’. In that regard, it points out that the amounts for which the applicants claim that
they should have had a reference quantity, as well as those for which under Regulation No 1121/2001 they have obtained such
a quantity, are significantly higher than the amounts that they in fact imported from 1994 to 1996. Conversely, the applicants
were not prevented from importing certain quantities of bananas as a result of the fact that they had not been allocated a
sufficiently large reference quantity because they could have acquired additional import entitlements from third parties.
The Commission concludes that the applicants have not provided an adequate basis for assessing the damage they allegedly suffered
and, more generally, they have not sufficiently substantiated their claim for damages.
The Kingdom of Spain submits that no unlawful conduct can be attributed to the Commission in the present case. It refers,
more particularly, to the findings made by the Court in paragraphs 149 and 150 of its judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
.
Furthermore, it considers that the applicants have not adduced evidence to establish the existence and extent of the loss
which they claim to have suffered or the existence of a causal link between the Commission’s allegedly unlawful conduct and
that loss.
Findings of the Court
According to settled case-law, in order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability within the meaning of the second
paragraph of Article 288 EC a number of conditions must be satisfied: the alleged conduct of the institutions must be unlawful,
there must be actual damage and there must be a causal link between the alleged conduct and the damage pleaded (Case 26/81
Oleifici Mediterranei
v
EEC
[1982] ECR 3057, paragraph 16; Case T-175/94
International Procurement Services
v
Commission
[1996] ECR II-729, paragraph 44; Case T-336/94
Efisol
v
Commission
[1996] ECR II-1343, paragraph 30; and Case T-267/94
Oleifici Italiani
v
Commission
[1997] ECR II-1239, paragraph 20). If any one of those conditions is not satisfied, the action for damages must be dismissed
in its entirety and it is unnecessary to consider the other conditions for non-contractual liability (Case C-146/91
KYDEP
v
Council and Commission
[1994] ECR I-4199, paragraph 19, and Case T-170/00
Förde-Reederei
v
Council and Commission
[2002] ECR II-515, paragraph 37).
In the present case, it is necessary to consider the claim for compensation in the light of the first of those conditions,
concerning the existence of unlawful conduct. On that point, the case-law requires that there be a sufficiently serious breach
of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals (Case C-352/98 P
Bergaderm and Goupil
v
Commission
[2000] ECR I-5291, paragraph 42). As regards the requirement that the breach be sufficiently serious, the decisive test for
finding that it is fulfilled is whether the Community institution concerned manifestly and seriously disregarded the limits
on its discretion. Where that institution has only a considerably reduced discretion, or even none, the mere infringement
of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach (judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
, paragraph 134, and Joined Cases T-64/01 and T-65/01
Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert
v
Council and Commission
[2004] ECR II-0000, paragraph 71).
The unlawful conduct alleged in the present case is, essentially, that, in Regulation No 896/2001, the Commission, for the
purposes of establishing the reference quantity of the traditional operators A/B, used the average of the primary imports
of bananas from third countries and/or non-traditional ACP bananas by those importers in the years 1994 to 1996 and taken
into account during 1998 even though it knew that those data were incorrect, and failed to lay down a mechanism for checking
and correcting those data. In so doing, the Commission is said to be guilty variously of an ‘administrative failing’ or of
an infringement of the principle of sound administration or of ‘the principle that the application of Community legislation
must be certain and foreseeable’.
Having regard to the criteria laid down in the case-law cited at paragraph 142 above, it is necessary to determine whether
the infringement is sufficiently serious or not. It is therefore necessary to examine each of the contested regulations in
turn.
First, in the case of Regulation No 896/2001 it is undeniable that this was adopted by the Commission in the exercise of a
broad discretion (see, to that effect, Case C-280/93
Germany
v
Council
[1994] ECR I-4973, paragraph 89, and Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02
Di Lenardo
and Dilexport
[2004] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 57 and 71).
That regulation is based on Article 20 of Regulation No 404/93, as amended by Regulation No 216/2001, and that article confers
on the Commission the power to adopt, inter alia, rules for the management of the tariff quotas. Article 19 of that regulation
allows a broad discretion to the Commission as to the method to be applied for carrying out such management (see, to that
effect,
Di Lenardo and Dilexport
, paragraph 57). Article 19(1) provides that such management ‘may be … in accordance with the method based on taking account
of traditional trade flows (“traditionals/newcomers”) and/or other methods’. The only restriction on that broad discretion
is contained in Article 19(2), which states that ‘[t]he method adopted shall take account as appropriate of the need to maintain
the equilibrium of supply to the Community market’.
In the exercise of the broad discretion thus conferred on it, the Commission decided, when adopting Regulation No 896/2001,
to implement from 1 July 2001 and on a transitional basis until 1 January 2006 at the latest, a method of allocating import
licences based, to a large extent, on historical data and on a distinction between ‘traditional operators’ and ‘non-traditional
operators’, the former defined as carrying out primary imports of bananas.
It should be stated, first, that there is no basis for criticising the Commission’s choice in adopting that method as opposed
to any of the other methods which had previously been considered, and, in particular, that based on the ‘first come, first
served’ rule. It must be emphasised in this regard that the adoption of Regulation No 896/2001 occurred at the end of complex
and delicate international negotiations, in the course of which widely opposing points of view were expressed and had to be
reconciled. The Commission had to take account not only of the interests of the Community producers, but also of its obligations
towards the ACP States and the Community’s international obligations within the WTO.
Next, the choice for the method of allocating licences adopted by the Commission, of the years 1994 to 1996 as the reference
period for the definition of categories of operator and the determination of the reference quantities for the traditional
operators does not appear to be manifestly inappropriate.
First, it cannot be denied that the choice of an earlier period would not have been appropriate in the light, more particularly,
of the fact that the common system for the import of bananas introduced by Regulation No 404/93 only came into force on 1
July 1993. Before that date, the importation of bananas into the Community was subject to legal regimes which varied, sometimes
markedly, from one Member State to another.
Second, as is stated in recital 5 of Regulation No 896/2001, the most reliable historical data on primary imports in the Commission’s
possession when it adopted Regulation No 896/2001 were those for the years 1994 to 1996. Such data were used in the 1993 regime,
which laid down a system of allocating import licences based in particular on a subdivision of the A and B categories according
to three different economic activities, including primary imports (activity ‘a’) (see paragraph 11 above). Moreover, at the
time those data were the subject of detailed verification and, where necessary, correction, both by the relevant national
authorities and by the Commission. In the case of the latter, it should be noted that, in paragraph 146 of the judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
, the Court of First Instance found that the Commission ‘[had] exercised considerable diligence and care in checking and correcting
discrepancies in the figures sent by the competent national authorities and in eliminating double counting’.
It is true that those checks did not enable all cases of double counting to be eliminated, for the reasons set out in paragraph
147 of the judgment in
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe
v
Commission
. A margin of error therefore persisted, in particular in respect of the data on primary imports. The parties thus agree that,
in the years 1994 to 1996, the quantities of bananas imported under category A(a) licences were lower than the reference quantities
declared by the operators in question and that the average margin of error was therefore of the order of 11%. However, in
spite of those shortcomings, the data in question give a good general overview of the situation on the banana market in the
Community in the period in question.
Third, the Commission cannot be criticised for having included 1994 in the reference period, in spite of the fact that it
was particularly affected by the discrepancies criticised by the applicants. First, it could not have used the years 1995
to 1997 as the reference period because, in spite of its efforts to that effect, it had not been able to obtain from the Member
States reliable and complete data on primary imports in 1997. That is clearly shown by the evidence submitted by the Commission
in support of its assertions and set out at paragraph 135 above. In their reply, the applicants expressly acknowledge that
the data on primary imports for 1997 and 1998 had not been checked either by the relevant national authorities or by the Commission.
Second, it would not have been appropriate merely to choose a two-year period such as the years 1995 and 1996. As the Commission
rightly pointed out, taking a three-year period gives a more representative view of the banana market since the fluctuations
on that market are reduced from one year to the next. It must be added that under the 1993 and 1999 regimes, the allocation
of import licences was already made on the basis of the quantities of bananas sold (1993 regime) or in fact imported (1999
regime) during a three-year reference period.
Fourth, the 2001 regime is meant to be a transitional regime and the fact that available data already carefully checked in
the past were taken into account enabled it to be implemented rapidly.
Fifth, the choice of the years 1994 to 1996 as the reference period was made in the context of complex and delicate international
negotiations and is one of the factors likely to resolve the dispute over bananas lasting for several years between the Community,
on the one hand, and the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador on the other.
Lastly, as regards the applicants’ criticisms of the lack of a mechanism for checking and correcting the reference quantities
of the traditional operators in Regulation No 896/2001, it suffices to note that, in principle, such a mechanism was not justified
under the 2001 regime, since the data on which those quantities were based had already been the subject of detailed checks
and, where necessary, corrections in the past (see paragraph 151 above). A large margin of error did indeed exist but that
was inevitable and should be accepted for the reasons set out at paragraphs 149 to 155 above. Moreover, it is doubtful, given
the time which elapsed since the start of the reference period and the absence of any duty on the part of the operators and
the Member States to retain the supporting documentation relating to imports of bananas made during the years 1994 to 1996,
that new checks would have been possible or at least that they would have enabled a substantial number of further discrepancies
in the notified figures to be detected. In any event, as already found at paragraph 103 above, if the data appeared to be
manifestly incorrect or fraudulent, the Commission or the relevant national authorities were bound, even in the absence of
any express provision to that effect in Regulation No 896/2001, to make the necessary corrections.
It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the Commission has not manifestly and seriously infringed the limits
placed on its discretion by adopting Regulation No 896/2001. It follows that it cannot be criticised in that respect for any
unlawful conduct such as to cause the Community to incur non-contractual liability.
Second, in the case of Regulation No 1121/2001, it will be noted that this was adopted in the light of Article 4(1) and (2)
and Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation No 896/2001. The Commission is required in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 896/2001, to set an adjustment coefficient if there is a discrepancy between the sum of the reference quantities referred
to in Article 4(1) and (2) of the same regulation that each Member State notified to it and the available quantities of the
tariff quotas. It does not therefore have any discretion as to the appropriateness of fixing the adjustment coefficient or
as to the choice of the quantities to be taken into account in that respect. Consequently, in the case of the adoption of
Regulation No 1121/2001, a mere infringement of Community law may suffice in any event to found the Community’s non-contractual
liability.
The unlawful conduct which the applicants allege against the Commission in relation to Regulation No 1121/2001 is based on
the premiss that Regulation No 896/2001 is unlawful in that it provides for the taking into account, for the purposes of establishing
the reference quantity for traditional operators A/B, of data relating to primary imports made by those operators in the years
1994 to 1996 without providing for any mechanism for checking and correcting those data. In the light of the considerations
set out in paragraphs 145 to 157 above, the Commission did not act unlawfully in adopting Regulation No 896/2001. It follows
that the Commission cannot be criticised in respect of Regulation No 1121/2001 for any unlawful conduct such as to cause the
Community to incur non-contractual liability.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the claim for compensation must be rejected as unfounded without the need
to consider the other conditions for founding non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.
For the sake of completeness it should be noted, however, that the applicants do not satisfactorily demonstrate the existence
and extent of the damage they allege.
Firstly, in the case of the damage consisting of the loss of the right to import certain quantities of bananas in 2001, there
are several objections both to the position they adopt to demonstrate the existence of that loss and to the way in which they
calculate it.
First, the applicants submit that, whilst the reference quantity of the traditional operators A/B was established on the basis
of accurate data, the adjustment coefficient to be applied to that reference quantity was set not at 1.07883 but at 1.3327.
They claim to have lost ‘entitlements to import’ bananas amounting to the difference between the quantity obtained by applying
to their respective reference quantity, namely the average primary imports of bananas which they carried out during the years
1994 to 1996, the coefficient of 1.3327, and that obtained by applying the coefficient of 1.07883 to the same reference quantity.
Even if the figures and calculations put forward by the applicants were accurate, the fact that they obtained an individual
reference quantity lower than that which they could have claimed if a higher adjustment coefficient had been applied does
not necessarily mean that they suffered a corresponding loss. It must be remembered that the reference quantity is not in
itself an entitlement to import bananas but merely a reference basis for subsequent operations, that is, in particular, the
application for and the allocation of import licences. An operator will not necessarily apply for import licences for the
full amount of the reference quantity which has been allocated to it. As the Commission rightly points out, it must also have
a sufficient quantity of bananas to be imported under those licences and reasonable prospects of selling them in the Community.
In the present case, the applicants gave no indication to that effect. A more detailed demonstration of the existence of that
loss was required, particularly in view of the fact that for the relevant period (the second half of 2001) the adjustment
coefficient set by Regulation No 1121/2001 was positive. In other words, the individual reference quantity allocated to the
applicants was in fact greater than the primary imports they had made during the reference period. By taking account of the
adjustment coefficient which they claim should be applied, their individual reference quantity is markedly greater still.
It should further be noted that Article 14(2) of Regulation No 896/2001 states that ‘[f]or the first three quarters of the
year, it may be decided that applications for licences submitted by a given operator may not in total exceed a set percentage
of the reference quantity fixed under Article 5 or the annual allocation fixed under Article 9(3)’.
Second, the applicants demonstrate a total lack of seriousness and rigour in their calculation of the loss of entitlement
to import certain quantities of bananas in 2001. Thus, in their reply, they admitted that they had failed to take account
of the imports into Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1994 and that they had, therefore, greatly overestimated the average margin
of error referred to in their application. That therefore fell from 30.4% to 13.6%. In their reply, they propose at the same
time to use, in calculating their loss, ‘the rate of 11.24%’ accepted by the Commission in the course of the interim proceedings
and to update the data and information contained in their application for interim measures. Next, in their reply to one of
the written questions put to them by the Court of First Instance (see paragraph 49 above), the applicants admitted that they
had failed to take account in their calculation of the provisions of Article 28(2) of Regulation No 896/2001 and that the
figures referred to in the application concern the whole of 2001 whereas Regulation No 896/2001 only applied from the second
half of that year. They therefore apply the coefficient of 0.4454 laid down by that provision to the quantities of bananas
which, in their application, they alleged not to be able to import and thus arrive at […] tonnes for Comafrica and […] tonnes
for Dole. In addition to the fact that, once again, that is a substantial reduction of their claim, the applicants base their
new calculation on data for the year 1994 which, in their reply, they had however admitted to be greatly overstated. In other
words, in addition to the fact that it is impossible to determine with certainty what is the final basis of calculation proposed
by the applicants, it is in any event founded on inaccurate figures.
Second, as regards the second and third heads of alleged loss, consisting of ‘the loss of the future entitlement in respect
of lost volumes’ and of the reduction of their market shares, the applicants plead them in extremely vague terms, without
setting out clearly the evidence which would enable an assessment to be made of their nature and extent and without specifying
the criteria on the basis of which they should be calculated.
It follows that it has not been demonstrated that the second condition for the Community to incur extra-contractual liability
has been satisfied. For that reason also the claim for compensation must be rejected as unfounded.
The request for measures of inquiry
The applicants ask that the Court, by way of measures of inquiry, order the Commission:
–
to confirm that the four operators referred to in Annex 7 to the application include the applicants;
–
to provide information on the use of import licences in the years 1994 to 1996, on the figures for the imports in fact made
and on the method by which it arrived at its own estimate of the level of overclaims.
The Commission opposes that request.
The Court finds that there is no need to accede to the applicants’ request for measures of inquiry since the evidence in the
file and the explanations tendered at the hearing are sufficient to enable it to give judgment in the present case.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.
Costs
Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been
applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful and the Commission has asked
for costs to be awarded against them, they will be ordered to pay the Commission’s costs, including those relating to the
interim proceedings, as well as bearing their own.
The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
Simba shall bear its own costs, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
hereby:
1.
Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for annulment;
2.
Dismisses as unfounded the claim for compensation;
3.
Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the main proceedings and in the interim
proceedings;
4.
Orders the intervening parties to bear their own costs.
Lindh
García-Valdecasas
Cooke
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 February 2005.
H. Jung
P. Lindh
Registrar
President
–
Language of the case: English.
–
Confidential data omitted.