Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - 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)

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))

Summary

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-examination of the admissibility of its intervention 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 proceedings 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 introducing specific measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the OCTs and No 2494/97 adopted in the context of those measures.

First, although it is not covered by the term Member State, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the second paragraph of Article 230 EC), such an entity may, in principle, bring an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

Secondly, although the contested regulations are, by their nature, of general application and do not constitute decisions 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 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 annulment of the contested regulations cannot be excluded solely because the Member State has an autonomous right of action pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

Lastly, the applicant is directly concerned 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 applications 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 disturbances occur in a sector of the economy of the Community or one or more Member States, or their external financial stability is jeopardised, Article 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 principle of adopting such measures. Nevertheless it must establish the existence of a causal link between application of the Decision and the emergence of disturbances on the market concerned.

That was not the case when Regulation No 2352/97 introducing specific measures 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 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 objectives 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 Regulation No 2352/97, must be annulled.

( see paras 74, 78-79, 83, 87 )