Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 28 March 2003 by Arran Aromatics Limited, Mr Iain Russel and Mr Allastair Rennick against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-109/03)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 2003 by Arran Aromatics Limited, Isle of Arran, Scotland, Mr Iain Russel, Isle of Arran, Scotland, and Mr Allastair Rennick, Isle of Arran, Scotland, represented by Mr C. Pouncey, Solicitor and Mr L. Van Den Hende, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
listnum "WP List 1" \l 1Order the defendant to pay damages pursuant to Article 288 EC for the losses sustained by them through the breaches of community law set out in the application, all sums to be increased with compensatory interest at a rate of 8% to be applied from the day on which the damage materialised.
listnum "WP List 3" \l 1Order the defendant to pay legal interest on such sums as are found to be due at a rate of 8%
listnum "WP List 4" \l 1Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings
Pleas in law and main arguments:
In 1999 the World Trade Organisation found that the EC regime for the importation of bananas, as amended by Council Regulation No 1637/98
1 and Commission Regulation No 2362/98
2, was WTO-incompatible. Following that ruling, the United States, with WTO authorisation, adopted certain retaliatory measures against EC products. These measures included a 100% duty on bath preparations imported to the US from the EC. The first applicant is a Scottish company which produces, amongst other things, bath products, a large proportion of which it used to export to the United States. The other two applicants are officers of that company. The applicants allege that as a result of the retaliatory measures, the first applicant's
sales to the US decreased substantially causing it to suffer serious material losses and subjecting the other two applicants to stress and anxiety which caused them non-material damage. The applicants claim compensation under Articles 235 and 288 EC. In support of their application they submit that, by adopting Regulation 2362/98, the defendant violated the fundamental policy of the Community to make the "banana regime" WTO compatible as well as a clear mandate from the European Council to that effect. Moreover, Regulation 2362/98 allegedly violates the freedom to pursue a trade or business, the principle of proportionality, the principle of non-discrimination and finally the principle of good faith in international law and the legitimate expectations traders can derive from that. According to the applicants the breach of law is manifest and serious and the rules of law violated qualify as rules for the protection of the individual. Further, there exists a causal link between the unlawfulness of Regulation 2362/98 and the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, entitling the latter to compensation.