Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:95
Date: 2001-03-20
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;External relations;Fruit and vegetables;Commercial policy;Bananas
Concepts: GATT and WTO;General;Basis of liability;Bananas
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Request for compensation for damage 
attributable to the Community — Exclusive jurisdiction of the Community judicature 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC)) 
2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Infringement of a rule of law intended to 
confer rights on individuals — Not possible to rely on the GATT rules to contest the 
lawfulness of a Community act or as grounds for an action for damages — 
Exceptions — Community measure intended to implement a GATT rule or expressly 
and specifically referring thereto 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC)) 
II - 913 
SUMMARY — CASE T-18/99 
3. Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Bananas — Import arrange­
ments — Tariff quota — Opening and allocation of the quota — Allocation of 
import licences — Determination of the reference period —· Principle of the protec­
tion of legitimate expectations — Infringement — None 
(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 20(d), as amended by Regulation No 1637/98) 
4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Inadequacy of the state­
ment of reasons on which a measure contained in a regulation is based — Not 
sufficient 
(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para, (now Art. 288, second para., EC)) 
1. Where, in the context of an action for 
damages, the unlawful conduct is not 
that of a national body but that of a 
Community institution, any loss arising 
from the implementation of the Com­
munity legislation by the national 
authorities is attributable to the Com­
munity. Since the Community judica­
ture has exclusive jurisdiction under 
Article 215 of the Treaty (now Art­
icle 288 EC) to hear actions seeking 
compensation for such damage, re­
medies available under national law 
cannot ensure effective protection of 
the rights of individuals aggrieved by 
measures of Community institutions. 
(see paras 26-27) 
2. In the context of the Community's non­
contractual liability, a right to repar­
ation arises only where the rule of law 
infringed is intended to confer rights on 
individuals. That is not the case for the 
WTO agreements. Given their nature 
and structure, those agreements are not 
in principle among the rules in the light 
of which the Community judicature is 
to review the legality of measures 
adopted by the Community institu­
tions. It is only where the Community 
intends to implement a particular obli­
gation assumed in the context of the 
WTO, or where the Community meas­
ure refers expressly to the precise 
provisions of the agreements contained 
in the annexes to the WTO Agreement, 
that it is for the Court of Justice and 
the Court of First Instance to review 
the legality of the Community measure 
in question in the light of the WTO 
rules. 
(see paras 45-46, 50-51, 58) 
3. Determination of the reference period 
to be taken into account in allocating 
import licences for bananas to eco­
nomic operators is dependent on the 
II - 914 
CORDIS v COMMISSION 
choice of methods needed in order to 
carry out the policy of the Community 
institutions with regard to the common 
organisation of the banana markets. 
Those institutions have a discretion in 
that matter. Therefore, economic 
operators cannot entertain a legitimate 
expectation that the relative timing of 
the reference period taken into account 
for the purposes of issuing import 
licences, as provided for in the original 
version of Regulation No 404/93 on 
the common organisation of the mar­
ket in bananas, will be maintained. In 
addition, the temporary difficulties 
which can arise during the reform of 
a market organisation may in principle 
be settled on an individual basis by 
applying the arrangements for hardship 
cases provided for in Article 20(d) of 
Regulation No 404/93, as amended by 
Regulation No 1637/98, even if that 
requires a detailed examination of all 
the circumstances of the operator con­
cerned. 
(see paras 76, 78) 
4. So far as concerns a complaint relating 
purely to form, a possible inadequacy 
in the statement of the reasons on 
which a measure contained in a regula­
tion is based is not sufficient to render 
the Community liable. 
(see para. 79) 
II-915