Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:367
Date: 1998-07-16
Language of the case: Portuguese
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Portugal

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Actions for annulment — Measures against which an action may be brought — Practices of 
the institutions — Excluded 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173) 
2. Common commercial policy — Regulated by the Community institutions — Regulation No 
3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries — Imple­
menting powers conferred by the Council on the Commission — Limits — Interpretation by 
reference to the general aims of the legislation in question — Restrictive interpretation of 
provisions derogating from the general system 
(EC Treaty, Art. 145; Council Regulation No 3030/93, Art. 8) 
I - 7379 
SUMMARY — CASE C-159/96 
1. Since Article 173 of the Treaty does not 
allow a practice of a given Community 
institution to be annulled, an action for 
the annulment of the Commission's prac­
tice of applying 'exceptional flexibility 
measures' in the administration of quanti­
tative limits on the importation into the 
Community of textile products and 
clothing originating in non-member coun­
tries is inadmissible. 
2. In connection with the powers conferred 
by the Council on the Commission for 
the implementation of the rules which the 
Council lays down, it follows from the 
Treaty context and from practical require­
ments that the concept of implementation 
must be given a wide interpretation. Since 
only the Commission is in a position to 
watch international market trends and act 
quickly when necessary, the limits of the 
powers conferred by the Council in this 
area must be determined by reference, 
inter alia, to the essential general aims of 
the legislation in question. 
Article 8 of Regulation N o 3030/93 on 
common rules for imports of certain tex­
tile products from third countries must be 
interpreted restrictively, since it confers 
power on the Commission to grant addi­
tional import opportunities in derogation 
from the general system established by the 
same regulation where, in particular, cir­
cumstances exist 'within the meaning of 
that provision that are capable of justi­
fying the authorisation of additional quan­
tities. The fact that the Chinese authori­
ties issued export licences in excess of the 
quantitative limits laid down by that regu­
lation, mainly because of a breakdown in 
the computer system of those authorities, 
cannot justify additional import opportu­
nities authorised by a Commission deci­
sion. The exceeding of the quantitative 
limits has its origin in the administration 
of the double-checking system established 
by the EEC-China Agreement and must 
therefore be described not as an unusual 
or unforeseeable event but as a risk inherent 
in the procedure for monitoring those 
quantitative limits. Therefore, the decision 
adopted by the Commission concerning 
the importation of textile products and 
clothing originating in the People's 
Republic of China must be annulled. 
I - 7380