Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2001 in Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment)
Date: 2002-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), import, rice, tariff quota

19.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 17/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in which it:

of 22 November 2001

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded.

in Case C-110/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council
of the European Union (1)

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian
Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities
to bear their own costs.

(Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
lation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment)

(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.

(2002/C 17/01)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 November 2001

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

in Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council
of the European Union (1)

In Case C-110/97: Kingdom of
the Netherlands (Agent:
M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril), French Republic
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian Republic
(Agent: by U. Leanza and F. Quadri), and Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) — application
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of
17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect
of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and
territories (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and F. Macken
of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
(Rapporteur)
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevo´ n,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,

(Presidents

(Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
lation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment)

(2002/C 17/02)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
J.S. van den Oosterkamp and M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the
European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin),

C 17/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.1.2002

supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı´az Abad), French
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian
Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) and the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents P.J. Kuijper
and T. van Rijn) — application for the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing
safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in
the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet,
L. Sevo´ n, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001,
in which it:

1. Dismisses the action as unfounded.

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian
Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to
bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.

of

and

ECSC

Treaty

(Civil Division) (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between H.J. Banks
& Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority, Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry — on the interpretation of Article 4(b) and (c) of
the
Commission Decision
No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Com-
munity rules for State aid to the coal industry (OJ 1993 L 329,
p. 12) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen
and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. A situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from
the restructuring date until the transfer to the successful private
tendering undertakings of
the shares of the Crown-owned
companies which succeeded British Coal Corporation as operator
implies the existence of aid, within the meaning of Article 4(c)
of the ECSC Treaty, but not of special charges within the
meaning of that provision. The same situation may constitute
discrimination between producers, within the meaning of
Article 4(b) of the same Treaty. That would be the case if
significant objective differences in situation between, on the one
hand, British Coal Corporation and the Crown companies
which succeeded it as operator, and, on the other hand, the
other operators, did not justify the differentiated treatment
applied to the two categories of producers.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 September 2001

in Case C-390/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):
H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority, Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry (1)

A situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as
from the time of the transfer of the shares of the Crown-owned
companies which succeeded British Coal Corporation as operator
to the successful private tendering undertakings, does not reveal
the existence of aid or special charges within the meaning of
Article 4(c) of the Treaty, or discrimination between producers,
within the meaning of Article 4(b) of the Treaty, since access to
the various means of acquiring the lease and licence rights was
not, and is not, discriminatory.

(ECSC Treaty — Licences to extract raw coal — Discrimi-
nation between producers — Special charges — State aid —
Article 4(b)
the Treaty — Decision
No 3632/93/ECSC — Code on aid to the coal industry —
Direct effect — Respective powers of the Commission and
the national courts)

and

(c)

of

(2002/C 17/03)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-390/98: reference to the Court under Article 41 of
the ECSC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales)

2. Article 4(b) of the Treaty, in so far as it concerns discrimination
between producers, and the first sentence of Article 9(4) of
Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
industry directly confer rights upon individuals which the
national courts must protect. On the other hand, Article 4(c) of
the Treaty, in so far as it concerns the compatibility of aid with
the common market, does not itself create such rights. However,
the national courts have jurisdiction to interpret the concept of
aid for the purposes of Article 4(c) of the Treaty and Article 1
of Decision No 3632/93, with a view to drawing the
consequences from any infringement of the first sentence of
Article 9(4) of that decision.