Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:36
Date: 2000-02-10
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Association Agreement;External relations;Overseas countries and territories;Rice
Concepts: Association of Overseas Countries and Territories;Applications by natural or legal persons;Intervention
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Procedine — Intervention — Admissibility — Re-examination after a previous order 
holding intervention admissible — Member States' right to intervene — Scope 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 37, para. 1, and 46, para. 1) 
II - 201 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-32/98 AND T-41/98 
2. Actions for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Regulations introducing specific measures for the import 
of rice originating in the associated overseas countries and territories —Action brought 
by an autonomous entity of a Member State which is part of those countries and 
territories — Admissibility 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, paras. 2 and 4 (now, after amendment, Art. 230, paras 2 and 4, 
EC; Commission Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2494/97) 
3. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures against 
imports of agricultural products originating in the associated overseas countries and 
territories — Conditions governing their introduction — Commission's discretion — 
Limits — Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2494/97 — Unlawfulness 
(Commission Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2497/97; Council Decision 91/482, 
Art. 109(1)) 
1. The fact that the Court of First Instance 
has, by an earlier order, given leave to a 
Member State to intervene in support 
of the forms of order sought by one of 
the parties does not preclude re-exam­
ination of the admissibility of its inter­
vention in the judgment bringing the 
proceedings to a conclusion. However, 
the fact that a Member State ratified 
the Treaty of Accession of another 
Member State only in respect of its 
European territory is not capable of 
affecting the latter's exercise of its 
entitlement to intervene in any pro­
ceedings before the Court of First 
Instance, which is vested in it by virtue 
of its status as a Member State. 
(see paras. 30-31) 
2. An autonomous entity of a Member 
State endowed with legal personality 
under national law and forming part of 
the overseas countries and territories 
(OCTs) may institute proceedings 
against Regulations No 2352/97 intro­
ducing specific measures in respect of 
imports of rice originating in the OCTs 
and No 2494/97 adopted in the con­
text of those measures. 
First, although it is not covered by the 
term Member State, within the mean­
ing of the second paragraph of Arti­
cle 173 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, the second paragraph of 
Article 230 EC), such an entity may, in 
principle, bring an action for annul­
ment under the fourth paragraph of 
Article 173 of the Treaty. 
Secondly, although the contested reg­
ulations are, by their nature, of general 
application and do not constitute deci­
sions within the meaning of Article 189 
of the Treaty (now Article 249 EC), 
they are of individual concern to the 
applicant in so far as the Commission, 
when envisaging their adoption, was 
under a duty specifically to take 
II - 202 
NEDERLANDSE ANTILLEN V COMMISSION 
account of the applicant's situation by 
virtue of Article 109(2) of Decision 
91/482 on the association of the OCT. 
Moreover, the interest of the applicant 
in bringing proceedings for the annul­
ment of the contested regulations can­
not be excluded solely because the 
Member State has an autonomous right 
of action pursuant to the second para­
graph of Article 173 of the Treaty. 
Lastly, the applicant is directly con­
cerned by Regulation No 2352/97, 
which contains comprehensive rules 
leaving no latitude to the authorities 
of the Member States, since it regulates 
in a binding manner the machinery for 
submission and issue of import licences 
for rice originating from the OCTs and 
also authorises the Commission to 
suspend the issue thereof if a quota 
determined by it is exceeded or there 
are serious disturbances of the market. 
Regulation No 2494/97 is also of 
direct concern to the applicant in that 
it excludes the issue of import licences 
for rice falling within CN code 1006 
and originating in the OCTs for appli­
cations submitted from 3 December 
1997 and suspends until 31 December 
1997 the submission of further import 
licence applications for rice from that 
origin. 
(see paras 43, 45, 48, 57-58, 60-61) 
3. In providing that the Commission may 
take or authorise safeguard measures 
against imports of products originating 
in the associated overseas countries and 
territories (OCTs) if serious distur­
bances occur in a sector of the econ­
omy of the Community or one or more 
Member States, or their external finan­
cial stability is jeopardised, Arti­
cle 109(1) of Decision 91/482 on the 
association of the OCTs allows the 
Commission a wide discretion not only 
regarding the existence of conditions 
justifying the adoption of safeguard 
measures but also as regards the prin­
ciple of adopting such measures. 
Nevertheless it must establish the exis­
tence of a causal link between applica­
tion of the Decision and the emergence 
of disturbances on the market con­
cerned. 
That was not the case when Regulation 
No 2352/97 introducing specific mea­
sures in respect of imports of rice 
originating in the OCTs was adopted. 
The threat of imports of unlimited 
quantities of products from the OCTs 
derives directly from application of the 
provisions of Part Four of the Treaty on 
the association of the OCTs and from 
Decision 91/482, which provide that 
trade with the OCTs is in principle to 
be placed on the same footing as trade 
between Member States. If such a 
threat, which is always imminent in 
II - 203 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-32/98 AND T-41/98 
the absence of safeguard measures, 
were sufficient to demonstrate the 
existence of the causal link required 
before safeguard measures are adopted 
pursuant to Article 109(1), the objec­
tives pursued by the provisions of Part 
Four of the Treaty and of the OCT 
Decision would be rendered nugatory. 
Accordingly Regulation No 2352/97, 
and in consequence, Regulation 
No 2494/97, which is based on Reg­
ulation No 2352/97, must be annulled. 
(see paras 74, 78-79, 83, 87) 
II - 204