Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:175
Date: 1998-04-28
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;External relations;Free movement of goods;Commercial policy;Rice;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
Common Customs Tariff — Community tariff quotas — Import quotas for rice introduced to 
compensate for the increase in certain rates following the accession of new Member States — 
Regulation No 1522/96 — Legality in the light of the relevant GATT rules and the principles of 
proportionality and the obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — None 
(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Art. XXIV(6); Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XXIV, para. 5 et seq.; Council Regulation No 1522/96, Arts 3, 4 and 9) 
I - 6937 
SUMMARY — CASE C-352/96 
Under Regulation N o 1522/96 on certain tariff 
quotas for imports of rice and broken rice, 
which was adopted pursuant to agreements 
concluded with Australia and Thailand fol­
lowing negotiations conducted pursuant to 
Article XXIV(6) of GATT, Articles 3 and 4 
provide that import licences are to be issued 
solely to traders holding an export licence 
obtained in the country of origin, whilst 
Article 9 sets out the criteria for intervention 
where there is a risk to the Community rice 
sector and fixes in particular a quantitative 
threshold for certain products. Since, by 
adopting those arrangements, the Commu­
nity sought to implement a particular obliga­
tion entered into within the framework of 
GATT, namely to agree with the third coun­
tries concerned upon mutually satisfactory 
compensatory adjustments to take account of 
the increase in certain customs duty rates 
ensuing from the application of the Common 
Customs Tariff by the new Member States, 
that obligation must be regarded as fulfilled 
and cannot therefore serve as a basis for 
examining the legality of the Regulation if the 
Community and the third countries have 
reached the agreements referred to above. 
Nor, moreover, does it appear that the man­
agement system provided for in Articles 3 
and 4 or the intervention system provided for 
in Article 9 of the Regulation are contrary to 
the principle of proportionality, or that the 
intervention system is vitiated by defective 
reasoning or constitutes misuse of powers. 
I - 6938