Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for damages - Subject-matter - Request for compensation for damage attributable to the Community - Exclusive jurisdiction of the Community judicature

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

2. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Not possible to rely on the GATT rules to contest the lawfulness of a Community act or as grounds for an action for damages - Exceptions - Community measure intended to implement a GATT rule or expressly and specifically referring thereto

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

3. Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Tariff quota - Opening and allocation of the quota - Discrimination - None

(Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

4. Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Tariff quota - Opening and allocation of the quota - Freedom to pursue a trade or business - Breach - None

(Council Regulation no 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

5. Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Tariff quota - Opening and allocation of the quota - Measure appropriate to the operation of the common organisation - Breach of the principle of proportionality - No breach - Discretion of the Court of First Instance - Limits

(Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

Summary

1. Where, in the context of an action for damages, the unlawful conduct is not that of a national body but that of a Community institution, any loss arising from the implementation of the Community legislation by the national authorities is attributable to the Community. Since the Community judicature has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288 EC) to hear actions seeking compensation for such damage, remedies available under national law cannot ensure effective protection of the rights of individuals aggrieved by measures of Community institutions.

( see paras 31-32 )

2. In the context of the Community's non-contractual liability, a right to reparation arises only where the rule of law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals. That is not the case for the WTO agreements. Given their nature and structure, those agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Community judicature is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions. It is only where the Community intends to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or where the Community measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the agreements contained in the annexes to the WTO Agreement, that it is for the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance to review the legality of the Community measure in question in the light of the WTO rules.

( see paras 50-51, 55-56, 63 )

3. The principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations should not be treated in a different manner unless the difference in treatment is objectively justified. In this connection, even if it were possible that the situations of various categories of economic operators had been affected differently by Regulation No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community, this would not constitute discriminatory treatment in so far as such treatment appears to be inherent in the objective of integrating markets within the Community. Accordingly, differences in the effects of the rules, which are due to objective phenomena such as differences in size and market position, cannot be described as discrimination within the meaning of the Treaty. Moreover, even assuming that political intervention on the part of the legislature in support of small and medium-sized businesses were justified, the absence of it in the context of Regulation No 2362/98 cannot be considered to be a fault giving rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community.

( see paras 74-75, 78 )

4. Although the freedom to pursue a trade or business is one of the general principles of Community law, those principles are not absolute, but must be viewed in relation to their social function. Consequently, the freedom to pursue a trade or profession may be restricted, particularly in the context of a common organisation of a market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute disproportionate and unacceptable interference, impairing the very substance of the right guaranteed. As regards the banana sector, no economic operator can claim a proprietary right in a market share which he held prior to the establishment of a common organisation of the market. Moreover, restrictions on the right to import third-country bananas resulting from the opening of the tariff quota and the system established by Regulation No 2362/98 for its allocation are inherent in the objectives of general Community interest pursued by the establishment of the common organisation of the market in bananas and therefore do not improperly impair the freedom of traditional traders in third-country bananas to pursue their trade or business.

( see paras 80-81 )

5. By adopting the system of allocating the tariff quota established by Regulation No 2362/98 and by laying down the detailed rules for its application, the Community legislature selected from the various possibilities open to it the one which seemed most appropriate for introducing a market organisation for bananas. Such a measure must in principle be regarded as appropriate to the objective of allocating the tariff quota equitably, even if, because of the different situations of the operators, the measure does not affect all of them in the same way. Moreover, whilst there may have been other means of achieving the desired result, the Court of First Instance cannot substitute its assessment for that of the Commission as to the appropriateness or otherwise of such measures, if they have not been shown to be manifestly inappropriate for achieving the objective pursued.

( see paras 94, 96 )