BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Help]
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
23 November 1999 (1)
(Action for annulment - Commercial policy - Quantitative restrictions on
imports of textile products - Products originating in India - Regulation (EC) No
3053/95 - Partial withdrawal)
In Case C-89/96,
Portuguese Republic, represented by L. Fernandes, Director of the Legal Service
of the Directorate-General for European Community Affairs in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and M. L. Duarte, Legal Adviser in the same service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33
Allée Scheffer,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. de Pauw and F. de
Sousa Fialho, both of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of Annex V, on cottage industry and folklore
products, to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 of 20 December 1995amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XI of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from
third countries (OJ 1995 L 323, p. 1),
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O.
Edward and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), P.J. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C.
Gulmann, J.-P- Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,
Judges,
Advocate General: A. Saggio,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 28 April 1998,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 February
1999,
gives the following
Judgment
- By application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 March 1996, the Portuguese
Republic brought an action under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 230 EC) for the
annulment of Annex V, on cottage industry and folklore products ('the contested
annex) to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 of 20 December 1995
amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XI of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from
third countries (OJ 1995 L 323, p. 1).
- The fifth and sixth indents of Article 1 of Regulation No 3053/95 replace Annex VI
of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 275, p. 1) by the
contested annex and also repeal Annex VIa of that regulation as from 1 January
1995.
- By Commission Regulation (EC) No 1410/96 of 19 July 1996 concerning the partial
withdrawal of Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 (OJ 1996 L 181, p. 15, 'the withdrawalregulation), the Commission, in Article 1(1), withdrew the fifth and sixth indents
of Article 1 of Regulation No 3053/95 with retroactive effect from 1 January 1995.
- However, Article 1(2) of the withdrawal regulation provides that the partial
withdrawal of Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 is not to affect the rights to which its
adoption may have given rise for its intended beneficiaries in the period from 1
January 1995 until the date of entry into force of the withdrawal regulation, namely
21 July 1996.
- According to the first recital in the preamble to the withdrawal regulation, the
amendments provided for in the fifth and sixth indents of Article 1 of the
withdrawal regulation had been adopted at a time when, by virtue of Article 19 of
Regulation No 3030/93, the Commission was not yet entitled to adopt such
amendments, the Council not yet having decided to conclude or apply provisionally
the arrangements for access to the market for textile products negotiated by the
Commission with the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The
Commission therefore considered that Regulation No 3053/95 contained a
procedural defect that warranted at least its withdrawal or partial annulment.
- In its reply, which was lodged on 26 August 1996, the Portuguese Government
requests the Court to adjudicate on the merits of the present application,
notwithstanding the withdrawal of part of the contested regulation. The
Portuguese Government claims that when it lodged its application it knew that
when the Council adopted a decision concerning the conclusion of arrangements
with the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on access to the
market for textile products the Commission could lawfully adopt an implementing
measure whose material content would be the same as that of the contested annex.
- The Portuguese Government further claims that the withdrawal of the contested
annex does not render its application entirely devoid of purpose, since Article 1(2)
of the withdrawal regulation maintains the rights to which that annex may have
given rise for its intended beneficiaries between 1 January 1995 and the date of its
entry into force.
- In its rejoinder the Commission requests the Court to declare that there is no need
to adjudicate on the present application, which has become devoid of purpose.
- It should be noted that by Article 1 of the withdrawal regulation the fifth indent of
Article 1 of Regulation No 3053/95, which provides that Annex VI to Regulation
No 3030/93 is to be replaced by the contested annex, was withdrawn with
retroactive effect from 1 January 1995, but that such withdrawal is not to affect the
rights to which that annex may have given rise for its intended beneficiaries.
- It follows that, contrary to what the Commission claims, the application is not
devoid of purpose in so far as certain effects of the contested annex subsist.
- Since the Portuguese Republic's action is aimed at removing from the Community
legal order not only the contested annex but also all the effects which it has
produced, the Court must adjudicate on the application.
- As the Commission expressly acknowledged in the first recital in the preamble to
the withdrawal regulation, at the time when Regulation No 3053/95 was adopted
it was not entitled to replace Annex VI to Regulation No 3030/93 by the contested
annex.
- In that regard, it should also be noted that it is not open to a Community
institution which has adopted a measure without being competent to do so to
withdraw that measure when its legality is challenged before the Court and at the
same time essentially to preserve the effects which it has produced, in order
thereby to achieve the objective which it sought to achieve by adopting it,
notwithstanding the withdrawal of the illegal measure.
- It follows that the Portuguese Government's application must be upheld.
- As regards the Commission's alternative claim, that the effects of Regulation
No 3053/95 should be maintained, it has failed to demonstrate the need to protect
the rights to which the adoption of that regulation may have given rise for the
intended beneficiaries. The Commission admitted, in response to a question on
that point at the hearing, that it did not know of any specific situations which it was
necessary to protect.
- Accordingly, Article 1 of Regulation No 3053/95 must be annulled in so far as it
replaces Annex VI of Regulation No 3030/93 by Annex V.
Costs
17. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be
ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's
pleadings. Since the Portuguese Republic applied for the Commission to be
ordered to pay the costs and the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be
ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 of 20
December 1995 amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XI ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of
certain textile products from third countries in so far as that provision
replaces Annex VI to Regulation No 3030/93 by Annex V;
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Rodríguez Iglesias Moitinho de Almeida Edward
Sevón Kapteyn Gulmann Puissochet
Hirsch Jann Ragnemalm Wathelet
|
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 November 1999.
R. Grass
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias
Registrar
President
1: Language of the case: Portuguese.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1999/C8996.html