The Court has given judgment in response to a request from a German court for a ruling in a case concerning an importer of third-country bananas.
The legal background is the same as that in Case C-122/95, in which the Court of Justice of the EC has also given judgment today, and is described in Press Release No 12/98. The relevant measures are the EEC Regulation of 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas and the Framework Agreement on Bananas between the Community and Costa Rica, Colombia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The present case involves, in addition, the provisions of GATT and of an EC Regulation (No 478/95) of 1995, laying down additional implementing rules for the common organisation of the market in bananas. That Regulation sets the tariff quota in line with the above Framework Agreement - and thus also reproduces the difference in treatment between Category A, B and C operators explained in Press Release No 12/98.
T. Port GmbH & Co. is a traditional importer of third-country bananas (a Category A operator). It obtained licences to import third-country bananas for 1993 and 1994, for volumes determined on the basis of quantities sold during the reference years 1989, 1990 and 1991. In 1994 T. Port, pleading that it was suffering hardship, requested additional licences. In the course of that procedure, the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Hesse), by order of 9 February 1995, instructed the competent authority to issue T. Port with further import licences for 1995 and sought a ruling from the Court of Justice concerning the rules governing cases of hardship (judgment of 26 November 1996, Case C-68/95 T. Port v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft and Ernährung).
After using those licences, T. Port asked the Hauptzollamt (Customs Office), in 1995, to grant customs clearance for several consignments of bananas from Ecuador without requiring it either to produce import licences or pay the customs duty due. T. Port challenged the Hauptzollamt's refusal in the German courts. In the context of those proceedings, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court), Hamburg, sought a further ruling from the Court of Justice (Case C-182/95 T. Port v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas). The Court stayed proceedings in that case until the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), before which T. Port had also brought proceedings, had given its ruling.
In interlocutory proceedings, T. Port had been authorised to import bananas from Ecuador without presenting an import licence and at the lower rate of duty. In the present case, it is challenging the Hauptzollamt's August and September 1995 decisions requiring post-clearance recovery of the customs duties payable on those bananas from Ecuador. The Finanzgericht Hamburg, which is hearing the case, decided to suspend the operation of those decisions and referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice, which has delivered its ruling today.
The German court raises three problems. First, it considers that the basic 1993 EEC Regulation on the common organisation of the market in bananas is contrary to certain fundamental rules of GATT, which should prevail. That raises the question whether a Community citizen may rely on certain GATT provisions in court proceedings - that is to say, whether and to what extent GATT might have direct effect. Finally, there is the question whether the Community Regulation laying down implementing rules, which sets the tariff quota for bananas in line with the Framework Agreement, is valid - it might be contrary to GATT and incompatible with the general principle of non-discrimination between producers or consumers.
The relationship between certain EC Regulations and GATT
The disputes concern the year 1995. Ecuador did not join the WTO, and thus GATT, until 1996. Since its accession cannot have any retroactive effect, the Court considers that the first problem raised is of no relevance in the present case.
The direct effect of GATT provisions
In view of the above finding, the Court sees no need to give a ruling on this point either.
The validity of the EC Regulation laying down implementing rules concerning the tariff quota for bananas in accordance with the terms of the Framework Agreement
The German court considers that this Regulation is contrary to Article XIII of GATT because the general system of dividing up the quotas does not take account of previous imports. The Court of Justice, again on the basis of the chronology of the case, finds that there is no need to give a ruling on this problem.
In the German court's view, the system of dividing up the tariff quotas in the Regulation is contrary to the general principle of non-discrimination.
The Court of Justice agrees. The Regulation reproduced the difference in treatment as between Category A, B and C operators contained in the Framework Agreement with Costa Rica, Colombia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. It thereby violates the Community principle of non-discrimination for the reasons explained in the judgment delivered today in Case C-122/95 (see Press Release No 12/98).
The Court of Justice has therefore given the following answers to the German court's questions:
This press release is an unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice. It is available in all the official languages.
For the full text of the judgment, consult our Internet page http://curia.eu.int. at around 3 pm today.
For further information, contact Tom Kennedy phone: (352) 4303 3355 fax: (352) 4303 2734