Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:159
Date: 2001-03-13
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Association Agreement;External relations;Overseas countries and territories;Rice
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Netherlands;Provisional data;Netherlands Antilles

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Not possible to rely on the WTO 
agreements in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act — Exceptions — 
Community measure intended to implement WTO agreements or expressly and 
specifically referring thereto 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment. Art. 230 EC)) 
I - 8853 
SUMMARY — CASE C-301/97 
2. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Implementation by the 
Council — Preservation of Community interests by the introduction of safeguard 
measures applicable to imports of agricultural products originating in the associated 
countries and territories — Power of the Council to reduce certain advantages 
previously granted to the overseas countries and territories 
(EC Treaty, Art. 132(1) (now Art. 183(1) EC) and Art. 136, second para, (now, after 
amendment, Art. 187, second para., EC); Council Decision 91/482, Art. 101) 
3. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures in respect 
of imports of agricultural products originating in the associated countries and 
territories — Conditions governing introduction — Discretion of the Community 
institutions —· Judicial review — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 1036/97; Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109) 
4. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures in respect 
of imports of agricultural products originating in the associated countries and 
territories — Principle of proportionality — Breach — None 
(Council Regulation No 1036/97; Council Decision 91/482) 
5. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Definition — 
Regulation introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating 
in the overseas countries and territories — Lawfulness 
(Council Regulation No 1036/97, Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109) 
6. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC) 
1. Having regard to their nature and 
structure, the WTO agreements are 
not in principle among the rules in the 
light of which the Court is to review 
the legality of measures adopted by the 
Community institutions. 
It is only where the Community inten­
ded to implement a particular obliga­
tion assumed in the context of the 
WTO, or where the Community mea­
sure refers expressly to the precise 
provisions of the WTO agreements, 
that it is for the Court to review the 
legality of the Community measure in 
question in the light of the WTO rules. 
(see paras. 53-54) 
2. The arrangements for association with 
the overseas countries and territories 
(OCTs) defined in Part Four of the 
I - 8854 
NETHERLANDS v COUNCIL 
Treaty confer advantages on those 
countries and territories in order to 
further their economic and social 
development. Those advantages are 
reflected, in particular, in the customs 
exemptions applicable to products ori­
ginating in the OCTs when they are 
imported into the Community. How­
ever, when the Council adopts mea­
sures under the second paragraph of 
Article 136 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, the second paragraph of 
Article 187 EC), it must take account 
not only of the principles in Part Four 
of the Treaty but also of the other 
principles of Community law, includ­
ing those relating to the common 
agricultural policy. 
In weighing the various objectives laid 
down by the Treaty, the Council, which 
enjoys for that purpose a considerable 
margin of discretion reflecting the 
political responsibilities entrusted to it 
by Treaty articles such as Article 136, 
may be prompted, in case of need, to 
curtail certain advantages previously 
granted to the OCTs. It follows that, 
when it considers that imports of rice 
originating in the OCTs cause or risk 
causing, by the combined effect of the 
quantities imported and the prices 
charged, serious disturbances to the 
Community market in rice, the Council 
may be prompted, by derogation from 
the principle set out in Article 132(1) 
of the Treaty (now Article 183(1) EC) 
and Article 101(1) of Decision 91/482 
on the association of the overseas 
countries and territories, to curtail 
certain advantages previously granted 
to the OCTs. 
(see paras. 64-65, 67-68) 
3. The Community institutions have been 
given a wide discretion in the applica­
tion of Article 109 of Decision 91/482 
on the association of the overseas 
countries and territories (OCTs) which 
empowers them to adopt or authorise 
safeguard measures where certain con­
ditions are met. In cases involving such 
a discretion, the Community courts 
must restrict themselves to considering 
whether the exercise of that discretion 
contains a manifest error or constitutes 
a misuse of power or whether the 
Community institutions clearly excee­
ded the bounds of their discretion. The 
Community court's review must be 
limited in particular if the Community 
institutions have to reconcile divergent 
interests and thus to select options 
within the context of the policy choices 
which are their own responsibility. 
It has not therefore been established 
that the Council committed a manifest 
error of assessment in adopting Regu­
lation No 1036/97 introducing safe­
guard measures in respect of imports 
of rice originating in the overseas 
I - 8855 
SUMMARY — CASE C-301/97 
countries and territories, in taking the 
view that imports of rice originating in 
the OCTs had increased considerably 
and that that increase necessitated the 
introduction of a tariff quota to ensure 
that imports into the Community of 
rice originating in the OCTs remained 
within limits compatible with the sta­
bility of the Community market. 
(see paras. 73-75, 85) 
4. In order to establish whether a provi­
sion of Community law complies with 
the principle of proportionality, it must 
be ascertained whether the means 
which it employs are suitable for the 
purpose of achieving the desired objec­
tive and whether they do not go beyond 
what is necessary to achieve it. The 
safeguard measures adopted under 
Regulation No 1036/97 which only 
exceptionally, partially and tempora­
rily limited the free importation into 
the Community of rice originating in 
the overseas countries and territories 
were suitable for the objective pursued 
by the Community institutions as it 
appears from that Regulation and from 
Decision 91/482 on the association of 
the overseas countries and territories. 
(see paras. 131, 134) 
5. A measure is only vitiated by misuse of 
powers if it appears, on the basis of 
objective, relevant and consistent evi­
dence, to have been taken with the 
exclusive or main purpose of achieving 
an end other than that stated or 
evading a procedure specifically pre­
scribed by the Treaty for dealing with 
the circumstances of the case. As for 
the objectives pursued by the Council 
in adopting Regulation No 1036/97 
introducing safeguard measures in 
respect of imports of rice originating 
in the overseas countries and terri­
tories, there is nothing to support the 
claim that the Council was pursuing an 
aim other than that of remedying the 
disturbances noted on the Community 
market in rice or of avoiding more 
serious disturbances than those already 
existing. 
As regards the fact that, in deciding on 
the safeguard measures, the Council 
resorted to the mechanism under Arti­
cle 109 of Decision 91/482 on the 
association of the overseas countries 
and territories, rather than amending 
that decision, it should be noted that 
the objective of the mechanism laid 
down by that article is precisely to 
enable the Council to end or prevent 
serious disturbances in a sector of the 
economy of the Community. There is 
nothing requiring the Council to have 
recourse to another mechanism on the 
ground that the intended safeguard 
measures would substantially limit 
imports. It is for the Council alone, in 
accordance with Article 109(2) of 
Decision 91/482, to ensure that those 
measures which least disturb the func¬ 
I - 8856 
NETHERLANDS v COUNCIL 
tioning of the association and of the 
Community are adopted, and that they 
do not exceed the limits of what is 
strictly necessary to remedy those dif­
ficulties. 
(see paras. 153-155) 
6. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 190 of the Treaty (now Arti­
cle 253 EC) must show clearly and 
unequivocally the reasoning of the 
institution which enacted the measure 
so as to inform the persons concerned 
of the justification for the measure 
adopted and to enable the Court to 
exercise its powers of review. It is not 
necessary, however, for details of all 
relevant factual and legal aspects to be 
given, in so far as the question whether 
the statement of grounds for a decision 
meets the requirements of Article 190 
of the Treaty must be assessed with 
regard not only to its wording but also 
to its context and to all the legal rules 
governing the matter in question. This 
is a fortiori the case where the Member 
States have been closely associated 
with the process of drafting the con­
tested measure and are thus aware of 
the reasons underlying that measure. 
Furthermore, in the case of a measure 
intended to have general application, 
the preamble may be limited to indi­
cating the general situation which led 
to its adoption, on the one hand, and 
the general objectives which it is inten­
ded to achieve, on the other. Moreover, 
if the contested measure clearly dis­
closes the essential objective pursued 
by the institution, it would be excessive 
to require a specific statement of rea­
sons for the various technical choices 
made. That is all the more so where the 
Community institutions enjoy a wide 
margin of discretion in their choice of 
the means necessary to achieve a com­
plex policy. 
(see paras. 187-191) 
I - 8857