Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:96
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;Freedom to pursue trade or professional activities
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 - 943 
SUMMARY — CASE T-30/99 
3. Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Bananas — Import arrange­
ments —· Tariff quota — Opening and allocation of the quota — Discrimin­
ation •—• None 
(Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) 
4. Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Bananas — Import arrange­
ments — Tariff quota — Opening and allocation of the quota — Freedom to pursue 
a trade or business — Breach — None 
(Council Regulation no 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) 
5. Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Bananas — Import arrange­
ments — Tariff quota — Opening and allocation of the quota — Measure appro­
priate to the operation of the common organisation •—• Breach of the principle of 
proportionality — No breach — Discretion of the Court of First Instance — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98) 
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, remed­
ies available under national law cannot 
ensure effective protection of the rights 
of individuals aggrieved by measures of 
Community institutions. 
(see paras 31-32) 
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 50-51, 55-56, 63) 
II - 944 
BOCCHI FOOD TRADE INTERNATIONAL v COMMISSION 
3. The principle of non-discrimination 
requires that comparable situations 
should not be treated in a different 
manner unless the difference in treat­
ment is objectively justified. In this 
connection, even if it were possible that 
the situations of various categories of 
economic operators had been affected 
differently by Regulation No 2362/98 
laying down detailed rules for the 
implementat ion of Regulat ion 
No 404/93 regarding imports of bana­
nas into the Community, this would 
not constitute discriminatory treatment 
in so far as such treatment appears to 
be inherent in the objective of integrat­
ing markets within the Community. 
Accordingly, differences in the effects 
of the rules, which are due to objective 
phenomena such as differences in size 
and market position, cannot be 
described as discrimination within the 
meaning of the Treaty. Moreover, even 
assuming that political intervention on 
the part of the legislature in support of 
small and medium-sized businesses 
were justified, the absence of it in the 
context of Regulation No 2362/98 
cannot be considered to be a fault 
giving rise to the non-contractual li­
ability of the Community. 
(see paras 74-75, 78) 
4. Although the freedom to pursue a trade 
or business is one of the general 
principles of Community law, those 
principles are not absolute, but must be 
viewed in relation to their social func­
tion. Consequently, the freedom to 
pursue a trade or profession may be 
restricted, particularly in the context of 
a common organisation of a market, 
provided that those restrictions in fact 
correspond to objectives of general 
interest pursued by the Community 
and do not constitute disproportionate 
and unacceptable interference, impair­
ing the very substance of the right 
guaranteed. As regards the banana 
sector, no economic operator can claim 
a proprietary right in a market share 
which he held prior to the establish­
ment of a common organisation of the 
market. Moreover, restrictions on the 
right to import third-country bananas 
resulting from the opening of the tariff 
quota and the system established by 
Regulation No 2362/98 for its alloca­
tion are inherent in the objectives of 
general Community interest pursued by 
the establishment of the common or­
ganisation of the market in bananas 
and therefore do not improperly impair 
the freedom of traditional traders in 
third-country bananas to pursue their 
trade or business. 
(see paras 80-81) 
5. By adopting the system of allocating 
the tariff quota established by Regula-
II - 945 
SUMMARY — CASE T-30/99 
tion No 2362/98 and by laying down 
the detailed rules for its application, 
the Community legislature selected 
from the various possibilities open to 
it the one which seemed most appro­
priate for introducing a market or­
ganisation for bananas. Such a measure 
must in principle be regarded as appro­
priate to the objective of allocating the 
tariff quota equitably, even if, because 
of the different situations of the opera­
tors, the measure does not affect all of 
them in the same way. Moreover, 
whilst there may have been other 
means of achieving the desired result, 
the Court of First Instance cannot 
substitute its assessment for that of 
the Commission as to the appropriate­
ness or otherwise of such measures, if 
they have not been shown to be 
manifestly inappropriate for achieving 
the objective pursued. 
(see paras 94, 96) 
II - 946