Case C-342/03

Kingdom of Spain

v

Council of the European Union

(Common commercial policy – Canned tuna originating in Thailand and the Philippines – Mediation within the WTO – Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 – Tariff quota)

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 2 December 2004

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 March 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. Common commercial policy – Trade with non‑member countries – Principle of Community preference – Scope

2. Common commercial policy – Trade with non-member countries – Adoption of tariff measures – Subordination to the absence of any adverse effect for Community producers – Not permissible

3. Actions for annulment – Grounds – Disappointment of traders’ legitimate expectations pleaded by a Member State – Admissible

4. Common commercial policy – Regulation by the Community institutions – Discretion – Traders’ legitimate expectation that an existing situation will be maintained – None

(Council Regulation No 975/2003)

5. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulations

(Art. 253 EC)

6. Actions for annulment – Grounds – Misuse of powers – Meaning

1. Whilst ‘Community preference’ is one of the political considerations on which the Community institutions have based themselves in adopting trading arrangements with non-member countries, that preference is, however, by no means a legal requirement infringement of which could result in the invalidity of the measure concerned.

(see paras 18-19)

2. Community law does not prohibit the adoption of tariff measures, the possible effects of which on competition are confined to a decrease in the orders of the producers concerned and inequality in the conditions of competition created by differences in social costs, environmental protection and control of products’ quality, between the non‑member countries concerned, on the one hand, and the Community, on the other.

Such a prohibition would prevent the Community contributing to the progressive removal of restrictions on international trade. In fact, any reduction in customs duties is liable to have some effect on competition between goods imported from non‑member countries and the equivalent Community products, to the disadvantage of the Community producers. A contrary interpretation would mean that the Community could never reduce duties on imported goods.

(see paras 24-25)

3. Whilst any trader on the part of whom an institution has inspired reasonable expectations may rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, there is nothing to prevent a Member State itself from claiming in an action for annulment that an act of the institutions frustrates the legitimate expectations of particular traders.

(see para. 47)

4. If those traders can foresee the adoption of the Community measure which affects their interests, the benefit of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be invoked.

As regards the common commercial policy, since the Community institutions enjoy a margin of discretion in the choice of the means needed to achieve it, traders cannot claim to have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation will be maintained.

(see paras 48-49)

5. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which enacted the measure, so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review.

In the case of a measure intended to have general application, the preamble may be limited to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, on the other.

(see paras 54-55)

6. A measure is only vitiated by misuse of powers 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 evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case.

(see para. 64)