Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:110
Date: 2003-04-10
Language of the case: Italian
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: General;Bananas;Measures in respect of which a plea of illegality may be raised
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom;Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing 
binding legal effects — Letter from an institution — Letter which merely interprets a 
legislative provision — Not included 
(Art. 230 EC) 
2. Plea of illegality — Scope — Measures in respect of which a plea of illegality may be 
raised — General measure on which the contested decision is based 
(Art. 241 EC) 
II - 1635 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-93/00 AND T-46/01 
3. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import arrange­
ments — Tariff quota — New scheme laid down in Regulation No 2362/98 — 
Applicability of Article 20(d) of Regulation No 404/93 to remedying of temporary 
difficulties arising from the transition from 1993 scheme to the 1999 scheme despite 
the existence of transitional provisions in Regulation No 2362/98 — Power of 
assessment of the Commission — Review by the Court — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 20(d); Commission Regulation No 2362/98) 
4. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import arrange­
ments — Tariff quota — New scheme laid down in Regulation No 2362/98 — 
Refusal by the Commission to adopt specific measures under Article 20(d) of 
Regulation No 404/93 in the light of the commercial nature of the difficulties 
encountered by an operator — No manifest error of assessment 
(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 20(d); Commission Regulation No 2362/98) 
1. Any measure the legal effects of which 
are binding on and capable of affecting 
the interests of the applicant by bring­
ing about a distinct change in his legal 
position is an act or a decision which 
may be the subject of an action for 
annulment under Article 230 EC. By 
contrast, a letter sent by a Community 
institution in response to a request 
made by the addressee is not a decision 
within the meaning of the fourth para­
graph of Article 230 EC, which entitles 
the addressee to bring an action for its 
annulment. In particular, an act by 
which an institution simply interprets a 
legislative provision cannot be held to 
be an act having adverse effects. A 
written expression of opinion emanat­
ing from a Community institution 
cannot constitute a decision in respect 
of which an action for annulment may 
be brought, since it is not capable of 
producing any legal effects nor is it 
intended to produce such effects. In 
such circumstances, it is not the inter­
pretation of the regulation proposed by 
the institution which is capable of 
producing legal effects but, rather, its 
application to a given situation. 
(see paras 59-61) 
2. Article 241 EC gives expression to the 
general principle conferring on any 
party to proceedings the right to chal­
lenge, for the purpose of obtaining the 
annulment of a decision of direct and 
individual concern to that party, the 
validity of previous acts of the institu­
tions which, even if not in the form of a 
regulation, form the legal basis of the 
decision which is being attacked, if that 
II - 1636 
ALESSANDRINI AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
party was not entitled under Article 230 
EC to bring a direct action challenging 
those acts by which it was thus affected 
without having been in a position to 
ask that they be declared void. Given 
that Article 241 EC is not intended to 
enable a party to contest the applica­
bility of any measure of general appli­
cation in support of any action what­
soever, the general measure claimed to 
be illegal must be applicable, directly 
or indirectly, to the issue with which 
the action is concerned and there must 
be a direct legal connection between 
the contested individual decision and 
the general measure in question. 
(see paras 76-77) 
3. Notwithstanding the transitional 
provisions under Title V of Regulation 
No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules 
for the implementation of Regulation 
No 404/93 regarding imports of 
bananas into the Community, by which 
the Commission specified the detailed 
arrangements for the 1999 arrange­
ment, the temporary difficulties which 
can arise during the reform of the 
common banana market organisation 
may in principle be settled by applying 
the arrangements for hardship cases 
provided for in Article 20(d) of Regu­
lation No 404/93 on the common 
organisation of the market in bananas. 
That article allows the Commission to 
adopt 'specific provisions needed' to 
facilitate the transition from the 1993 
arrangement for imports of bananas to 
the 1999 arrangement. When assessing 
whether transitional measures are 
necessary under that provision, the 
Commission has a broad discretion, 
which is to be exercised in accordance 
with the procedure laid clown in 
Article 27 of Regulation No 404/93. 
Thus, although it is for the Court of 
First Instance to review the lawfulness 
of the Commission's action or failure 
to act under that provision, the scope 
of that control is limited in particular 
to examining whether there has been a 
manifest error of assessment. 
(see paras 86, 88) 
4. The Commission does not commit a 
manifest error of assessment by refus­
ing to adopt specific provisions under 
Article 20(d) of Regulation No 404/93, 
in the version amended by Regulation 
No 1637/98, in order to remedy dif­
ficulties encountered by an importer as 
a result of the transition from the 1993 
arrangement to the 1999 arrangement 
if the difficulties alleged are essentially 
commercial in nature, such as the 
inability to obtain supplies of ACP 
II - 1637 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-93/00 AND T-46/01 
bananas or the decision not to foster 
commercial contacts with suppliers of 
ACP bananas. The very purpose of that 
article supposes that the difficulties 
alleged by the operator concerned are 
directly linked to the change from the 
1993 arrangement to the 1999 arrange­
ment and are not due to a lack of 
diligence on the part of that operator. 
(see paras 89-91, 95-96) 
II - 1638