Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:274
Date: 2002-11-14
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Overseas countries and territories;Sugar
Concepts: Association of Overseas Countries and Territories;Statement of reasons;Applications by natural or legal persons;Pleas in law;Basis of liability
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Regulation on safeguard measures for imports from 
the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) of sugar sector products ivith EC/OCT 
cumulation of origin — Undertakings established in the OCTs which have concluded 
contracts but are unable to perform them 
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2081/2000) 
II - 4755 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-332/00 AND T-350/00 
2. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures for 
imports from the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) of sugar sector products 
with EC/OCT cumulation of origin — Conditions for introduction — Difficulties 
which may result in a deterioration in a sector of the Community's activity or in a 
region of the Community 
(Commission Regulation No 2081/2000; Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109(1)) 
3. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures limiting 
duty-free access to the Community market in respect of sugar originating in the 
overseas countries and territories — Principle of proportionality — Breach — None 
(Commission Regulation No 2081/2000; Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109(2)) 
4. Association of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures for 
imports from the overseas countries and territories — Conditions for introduc­
tion — Discretion of the Commission — Review by the Court — Limits 
(Council Decision 91/482, Art. 109) 
5. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Not possible to rely on the WTO 
agreements in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community measure — 
Exceptions — Community measure intended to implement a WTO provision or 
expressly and specifically referring thereto 
(Art. 230 EC) 
6. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Definition 
(Art. 230 EC) 
7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Scope — Regulation on safeguard 
measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories 
(Art. 253 EC; Commission Regulation No 2081/2000; Council Decision 91/482, 
Art. 109(1) and (2)) 
8. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure involving choices of 
economic policy — Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the 
protection of individuals 
(Art. 288 EC) 
II - 4756 
RICA FOODS AND FREE TRADE FOODS v COMMISSION 
1. Regulation No 2081/2000 providing 
for the continued application of safe­
guard measures for imports from the 
overseas countries and territories 
(OCTs) of sugar sector products with 
EC/OCT cumulation of origin is of 
direct and individual concern, within 
the meaning of the fourth paragraph of 
Article 230 EC, to sugar-processing 
undertakings established in the OCTs 
which export to the Community the 
products referred to in that regulation. 
First, the contested regulation leaves no 
discretion to the national authorities of 
the Member States responsible for 
implementing it. Secondly, the fact that 
the applicants had entered into 
contracts, performance of which had 
been prevented, in whole or in part, by 
the regulation distinguishes them indi­
vidually for the purposes of the fourth 
paragraph of Article 230 EC. 
(see paras 45, 58) 
2. Under Article 109(1) of Decision 
91/482 on the association of the over­
seas countries and territories (OCTs) 
with the European Economic Commu­
nity the Commission may take safe­
guard measures if difficulties arise 
which may result in a deterioration in 
a sector of the Community's activity or 
in a region of the Community. Under 
Regulation No 2081/2000 providing 
for the continued application of safe­
guard measures for imports from the 
OCTs of sugar sector products with 
EC/OCT cumulation of origin, it was 
reasonable for the Commission to con­
sider, first, that the fact that imports of 
sugar and mixtures under the EC/OCT 
cumulation of origin regime increased 
greatly in the specific context of the 
surplus Community sugar market and 
the obligations under the WTO Agree­
ments constituted 'difficulties' within 
the meaning of Article 109(1) of 
Decision 91/482. Secondly, given that 
any further import of sugar or products 
with a high sugar content from the 
OCTs will mean a greater reduction in 
the quota for Community producers 
and a greater guaranteed income loss 
for them, it was reasonable for the 
Commission to consider that the com­
mon organisation of the markets in 
sugar could be greatly destabilised by 
increased imports of sugar originating 
in the OCTs. 
(see paras 67, 96, 116-117, 119, 145) 
3. By virtue of the principle of propor­
tionality, the legality of a safeguard 
measure is subject to the condition that 
the means it employs must be appropri­
ate to attain the legitimate objective 
pursued by the regulation in question 
and must not go further than is necess­
ary to attain it and, where there is a 
choice of appropriate measures, it is 
II - 4757 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-332/00 AND T-350/00 
necessary to choose the least onerous. 
The principle of proportionality is not 
infringed by Regulation No 2081/2000 
providing for the continued application 
of safeguard measures for imports from 
the overseas countries and territories 
(OCTs) of sugar sector products with 
EC/OCT cumulation of origin, which 
imposed only an exceptional, partial 
and temporary restriction on the 
importation into the Community, free 
of customs duty, of sugar or mixtures 
under the EC/OCT cumulation of ori­
gin regime. That regulation, which 
limited duty-free access to the Com­
munity market for sugar originating in 
the OCTs, within limits compatible 
with the situation on that market, 
whilst retaining preferential treatment 
for that product in a manner consistent 
with the objectives of Decision 91/482 
on the association of the OCTs with 
the European Economic Community, 
was a suitable instrument for attaining 
the objective sought by the Commis­
sion and did not go beyond what was 
necessary to do so. 
(see paras 143, 153, 174) 
4. The Community institutions enjoy a 
wide discretion in the application of 
Article 109 of Decision 91/482 on the 
association of the overseas countries 
and territories (OCTs) with the Euro­
pean Economic Community. In cases 
involving such a discretion, the Com­
munity judicature must restrict itself to 
considering whether the exercise of 
that discretion contains a manifest 
error or constitutes a misuse of power 
or whether the Community institutions 
clearly exceeded the bounds of their 
discretion. The limitation of review by 
the Community Court is particularly 
necessary where the Commission is 
called upon to arbitrate between dif­
fering interests — in the present case, 
protection of the common organisation 
of the markets in sugar, on the one 
hand, and protection of the interests of 
the OCTs and undertakings established 
in the OCTs on the other. 
(see paras 149-150, 174) 
5. 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. The same 
holds true where the Community meas­
ure referred for review by the Commu­
nity Court restricts trade between the 
Community and the overseas countries 
and territories, irrespective of their 
status within the WTO. It is only 
II - 4758 
RICA FOODS AND FREE TRADE FOODS v COMMISSION 
where the Community intended to 
implement a particular obligation 
assumed in the context of the WTO, 
or where the Community measure 
refers expressly to specific provisions 
of the WTO agreements, that it is for 
the Community Court to review the 
legality of the Community measure in 
question in the light of the WTO rules. 
(see para. 194) 
6. A measure is vitiated by misuse of 
powers only if it appears, on the basis 
of objective, relevant and consistent 
evidence, to have been taken with the 
exclusive or main purpose of achieving 
an end other than that stated or evad­
ing a procedure specifically prescribed 
by the Treaty. 
(see para. 200) 
7. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 253 EC must be appropriate to 
the act at issue and must disclose in a 
clear and unequivocal fashion the rea­
soning followed by the institution 
which adopted the measure in question 
in such a way as to enable the persons 
concerned to ascertain the reasons for 
the measure and to enable the compet­
ent Community Court to exercise its 
power of review. It is not necessary for 
the reasoning to go into all the relevant 
facts and points of law, since the 
question whether the statement of 
reasons meets the requirements of 
Article 253 EC 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. 
A regulation introducing safeguard 
measures which is based on the second 
hypothesis described in Article 109(1) 
of Decision 91/482 on the association 
of the overseas countries and territories 
with the European Economic Commu­
nity meets those requirements if it 
identifies the 'difficulties' which have 
arisen, explains how those difficulties 
entail the risk of 'a deterioration in a 
sector of the Community's activity or 
in a region of the Community' and 
contains information from which it is 
possible to assess whether the principle 
of proportionality provided for in 
Article 109(2) of Decision 91/482 has 
been observed. 
(see paras 207-208) 
8. As regards the Community's non-con­
tractual liability, a right to reparation 
II - 4759 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-332/00 AND T-350/00 
is conferred where three conditions are 
met: the rule of law infringed must be 
intended to confer rights on individuals 
and the breach must be sufficiently 
serious; the existence of damage must 
be established; and, lastly, there must 
be a direct causal link between the 
breach of the obligation resting on the 
Community and the damage sustained 
by the injured parties. Moreover, in a 
legislative context involving the exer­
cise of a wide discretion, the Commu­
nity cannot incur liability unless the 
institution concerned has manifestly 
and gravely disregarded the limits on 
the exercise of its powers. 
(see paras 222-223) 
II - 4760