Cordis Obst 判決、Bocchi Food 判決、T. Port 判決
(第1審裁判所) |
・ |
Case T-18/99, Cordis Obst v. Commisssion [2001] ECR II-913(1999年1月21日提起)
|
・ |
Case T-30/99, Bocchi Food v. Commisssion [2001] ECR II-943(1999年1月28日提起)
|
・ |
Case T-52/99, T. Port v. Commisssion [2001] ECR II-981(1999年2月19日提起)
第1審裁判所 2001年3月20日 判決 |
|
|
|
第1審裁判所の判決に先立ち、EC裁判所は、すでに1999年11月23日の判決において、WTO諸協定はEC第2次法の適法性を審査する基準にはならないとする基本原則を示している(Portugal v. Council 判決)。この点について、本件の原告らは次のように主張している。
Case T-18/99, Cordis Obst v. Commisssion
|
33. |
As
regards the possible inferences to be drawn from Portugal
v Council, cited in paragraph 17 above, the applicant
acknowledged, in response to the question raised by the Court of
First Instance, that the Court of Justice had held that the WTO
provisions did not have general direct effect within the
Community legal system.
|
34. |
It
added, however, that the judgment in that case did not conflict
with the arguments submitted in support of its action to the
effect that the Community institutions were guilty of misuse of
powers. The fact that the Community arrangements for banana
imports had been declared incompatible with the WTO rules by a
decision having the force of res judicata and the
Community had undertaken to rectify the infringements concerned,
in the applicant's view, precluded the Community institutions
from adopting further provisions in breach of those rules.
|
35. |
The
applicant put forward that argument at the hearing, stating that
in the present case, since the Community had given an
undertaking to the Dispute Settlement Body to repeal the
provisions of its regulations which conflicted with the WTO
rules, it had acted in breach of the principle nemini licet
venire contra factum proprium when putting that undertaking
into practice by adopting a regulation containing infringements
of those rules. It explained that the principle expressed in
that maxim, since it derives from the principle of good faith,
constitutes a principle of Community law by which the legality
of Community measures can be assessed by the Community
judicature. The applicant is therefore entitled to plead
infringement of the WTO rules on that ground also.
|
36. |
In
addition, the applicant states that it does not seek to
establish that the defendant was pursuing unlawful aims. Its
contention is that the Commission, with full knowledge of the
facts, infringed the WTO rules in order to achieve its ends,
namely the organisation of the market in bananas. Such conduct
constitutes a new category of misuse of powers.
|
37. |
Such misuse of powers means
that the Commission is under an obligation to provide
compensation irrespective of whether the WTO rules in question
are designed to protect individuals. Individuals enjoy absolute
protection against misuse of power by the Community
institutions.
|
Case T-30/99, Bocchi Food v. Commisssion |
38. |
As regards the possible inferences to be drawn from
Portugal v Council, cited in paragraph 22 above, the applicant
acknowledged, in response to the question raised by the Court of
First Instance, that the Court of Justice had held that the WTO
provisions did not have general direct effect within the Community
legal system.
|
39. |
It added, however, that the judgment in that case
did not conflict with the arguments submitted in support of its
action to the effect that the Community institutions were guilty of
misuse of powers. The fact that the Community arrangements for
banana imports had been declared incompatible with the WTO rules by
a decision having the force of res judicata and the Community had
undertaken to rectify the infringements concerned, in the
applicant's view, precluded the Community institutions from adopting
further provisions in breach of those rules.
|
40. |
The applicant put forward that argument at the
hearing, stating that in the present case, since the Community had
given an undertaking to the Dispute Settlement Body to repeal the
provisions of its regulations which conflicted with the WTO rules,
it had acted in breach of the principle nemini licet venire contra
factum proprium when putting that undertaking into practice by
adopting a regulation containing infringements of those rules. It
explained that the principle expressed in that maxim, since it
derives from the principle of good faith, constitutes a principle of
Community law by which the legality of Community measures can be
assessed by the Community judicature. The applicant is therefore
entitled to plead infringement of the WTO rules on that ground also.
|
41. |
In addition, the applicant states that it does not
seek to establish that the defendant was pursuing unlawful aims. Its
contention is that the Commission, with full knowledge of the facts,
infringed the WTO rules in order to achieve its ends, namely the
organisation of the market in bananas. Such conduct constitutes a
new category of misuse of powers.
|
42. |
Such misuse of powers means that the Commission is under an
obligation to provide compensation irrespective of whether the WTO
rules in question are designed to protect individuals. Individuals
enjoy absolute protection against misuse of power by the Community
institutions. |
Case T-52/99, T. Port v. Commisssion |
33. |
As regards the
possible inferences to be drawn from Portugal v Council, cited in
paragraph 17 above, the applicant acknowledged, in response to the
question raised by the Court of First Instance, that the Court of
Justice had held that the WTO provisions did not have general direct
effect within the Community legal system.
|
34. |
It added,
however, that the judgment in that case did not conflict with the
arguments submitted in support of its action to the effect that the
Community institutions were guilty of misuse of powers. The fact
that the Community arrangements for banana imports had been declared
incompatible with the WTO rules by a decision having the force of
res judicata and the Community had undertaken to rectify the
infringements concerned, in the applicant's view, precluded the
Community institutions from adopting further provisions in breach of
those rules.
|
35. |
The applicant
put forward that argument at the hearing, stating that in the
present case, since the Community had given an undertaking to the
Dispute Settlement Body to repeal the provisions of its regulations
which conflicted with the WTO rules, it had acted in breach of the
principle nemini licet venire contra factum proprium when putting
that undertaking into practice by adopting a regulation containing
infringements of those rules. It explained that the principle
expressed in that maxim, since it derives from the principle of good
faith, constitutes a principle of Community law by which the
legality of Community measures can be assessed by the Community
judicature. The applicant is therefore entitled to plead
infringement of the WTO rules on that ground also.
|
36. |
In addition,
the applicant states that it does not seek to establish that the
defendant was pursuing unlawful aims. Its contention is that the
Commission, with full knowledge of the facts, infringed the WTO
rules in order to achieve its ends, namely the organisation of the
market in bananas. Such conduct constitutes a new category of misuse
of powers.
|
37. |
Such misuse of
powers means that the Commission is under an obligation to provide
compensation irrespective of whether the WTO rules in question
aredesigned to protect individuals. Individuals enjoy absolute
protection against misuse of power by the Community institutions.
|
|