BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL FRUIT COMPANY NV, ROTTERDAM ( CASE 21/72 ),
KOOY ROTTERDAM NV, ROTTERDAM ( CASE 22/72 ),
VELLEMAN EN TAS NV, ROTTERDAM ( CASE 23/72 ),
JAN VAN DEN BRING' S IM - EN EXPORTHANDEL NV, ROTTERDAM ( CASE 24/72 ), AND
PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR GROENTEN EN FRUIT, THE HAGUE,
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SAID ARTICLE 177 AND, IF NECESSARY, ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION WITH ARTICLE XI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE ( GATT ),
Grounds
1 BY DECISION OF 5 MAY 1972, RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 8 MAY 1972, THE COLLEGE VAN BEROEP VOOR HET BEDRIJFSLEVEN REFERRED TO THE COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, TWO QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT ARTICLE AND TO THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION .
2 THE FIRST QUESTION INVITES THE COURT TO RULE WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ALSO REFERS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, TO THEIR VALIDITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW .
3 THE SECOND QUESTION, WHICH IS RAISED SHOULD THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, ASKS WHETHER REGULATIONS NOS 459/70, 565/70 AND 686/70 OF THE COMMISSION - WHICH LAID DOWN, BY WAY OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES, RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM THIRD COUNTRIES - ARE " INVALID AS BEING CONTRARY TO ARTICLE XI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE ( GATT ) ", HEREINAFTER CALLED " THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ".
4 ACCORDING TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY " THE COURT OF JUSTICE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO GIVE PRELIMINARY RULINGS CONCERNING ... THE VALIDITY ... OF ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ".
5 UNDER THAT FORMULATION, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT CANNOT BE LIMITED BY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE VALIDITY OF THOSE MEASURES MAY BE CONTESTED .
6 SINCE SUCH JURISDICTION EXTENDS TO ALL GROUNDS CAPABLE OF INVALIDATING THOSE MEASURES, THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO EXAMINE WHETHER THEIR VALIDITY MAY BE AFFECTED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CONTRARY TO A RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW .
7 BEFORE THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF A COMMUNITY MEASURE WITH A PROVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CAN AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THAT MEASURE, THE COMMUNITY MUST FIRST OF ALL BE BOUND BY THAT PROVISION .
8 BEFORE INVALIDITY CAN BE RELIED UPON BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT, THAT PROVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW MUST ALSO BE CAPABLE OF CONFERRING RIGHTS ON CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH THEY CAN INVOKE BEFORE THE COURTS .
9 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE GENERAL AGREEMENT SATISFIES THESE TWO CONDITIONS .
10 IT IS CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY CONCLUDED THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY THE MEMBER STATES WERE BOUND BY THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT .
11 BY CONCLUDING A TREATY BETWEEN THEM THEY COULD NOT WITHDRAW FROM THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THIRD COUNTRIES .