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 - Different treatment of operators established in Austria, Finland and Sweden - Discrimination - None

(Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98, Art. 5(3) and (4))

4. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Tariff quota - Opening and allocation of the quota - Allocation of import licences - Definition of an importer - Determination of criteria - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Infringement - None

(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 26-27 )

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 45-46, 50-51, 58 )

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, different treatment may not be regarded as discrimination prohibited by Article 40(3) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34(2) EC) unless it appears to be arbitrary, or in other words, devoid of adequate justification and not based on objective criteria.

The Commission did not infringe the principle of non-discrimination by treating, in the context of the common organisation of the market in bananas, operators established in Austria, Finland and Sweden differently from traditional operators as regards activities in those countries during 1994. At that time, those States were not yet subject to the common organisation of the market in bananas, so that special arrangements were necessary in order to enable imports by operators established in those countries in 1994 to be taken into account in determining their reference quantity.

( see paras 81-83 )

4. Since the Community institutions enjoy a margin of discretion in the choice of the means needed to implement their policy, economic operators cannot claim to have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by decisions taken by those institutions within the limits of their discretionary power will be maintained. This is particularly true in an area such as the common organisation of markets, which involves constant adjustments to meet changes in the economic situation.

Since determination of the criteria which, pursuant to Regulation No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93, are to be taken into account in order to recognise an economic operator as an importer for the purposes of allocating import licences for bananas is one of the choices as to the appropriate means for implementing the policy of Community institutions with regard to the common organisation of the market in bananas, those institutions have discretion in the matter. Consequently, economic operators have no grounds for a legitimate expectation that the criteria adopted under the former Community arrangements will be maintained.

( see paras 99-101 )