The Status of Adopted Panel and Appellate Body Reports in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of First Instance: The Banana Experience

Journal of World Trade

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 93-108

  Zonnekeyn, Geert A ^a,b  

^a Janson Baugniet   (Belgium)

^b TMC Asser Institute   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034386201     PISSN: 10116702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009019304836     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Case C-104/97 P, Atlanta AG v. Council and Commission, judgment of the European Court of Justice of 14 October 1999, not yet reported in the ECR.
2. Case T-254/97, Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz v. Commission, judgment of the European Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999, [1999] 3 C.M.L.R. 508.
3. The notion "panel and Appellate Body reports" refers to reports adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) pursuant to Article 17.14 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).
4. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
5. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
6. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
7. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
8. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
9. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
10. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
11. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
12. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
13. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
14. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
15. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
16. See on this particular question, J.M. Beneyto, "The EU and the WTO: Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?" (1996) 7 EuZW 295-299; J.H.J. Bourgeois, "International Jurisprudence and Domestic Law: Some Comments from a European Community Perspective", in Law and Practice Under the GATT, K.R. Simmonds and B.H.W. Hill (eds), Oceana Publications, New York, 1993, at pp. 10-13; T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at pp. 369-375; P. Eeckhout, "The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems" (1997) 34 CML.Rev. 11-58, at pp. 51-55; J.H. Jackson, "The Legal meaning of a GATT Dispute Settlement Report: Some Reflections", in Towards More Effective Supervision by International Organisations. Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. I, Blokker and Muller (eds.), (Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 1994), pp. 149-164; N. Lavranos, "Die Rechtswirkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht" (1999) 34 Europarecht 289-308; M. Montaǹa i Mora, "A GATT With Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes" (1993) 31 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. 103-180, at pp. 175-176; J. Nyberg, "Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?", (1997) 8 ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 211-269, at pp. 244-245; S. Peers, "Banana Split: WTO Law and Preferential Agreements in the EC Legal Order" (1999) 4 EFA Rev. 195-214, at pp. 205-212; A. Reinisch, "Entschädigung für die unbeteiligten 'Opfer' des Hormon- und Bananensteites nach Art. 228 II EG?" (2000) 11 EuZW 42-51, at pp. 48-49; C. Schmid, "Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1998) NJW 190-197, at p. 196; A. Weber and F. Moos, "Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht" (1999) 10 EuZW 229-236 and G.A. Zonnekeyn, "The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC legal Order: Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case" (1999) 2 JIEL 713-722.
17. T. Cottier, "Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union" (1998) 35 CML.Rev. 325-378, at p. 374.
18. Council Regulation (EC) No. 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, O.J. L 47/1 (1993), as amended. Art. 30 provides that "[I]f specific measures are required after July 1993 to assist the transition from arrangements existing before the entry into force of this Regulation to those laid down by this Regulation, and in particular to overcome difficulties of a sensitive nature, the Commission (...) shall take any transitional measures it judges necessary".
19. WT/DS27/AD/R, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, report of the Appellate Body of 9 September 1997.
20. The judgment of the CFI does probably not accurately reflect the arguments brought forward by the Spanish government since it is not the direct applicability of GATT that would jeopardise the jurisdictional monopoly of the ECJ but rather the possibility to invoke a panel or Appellate Body report in a procedure before the ECJ and the obligation of the ECJ to comply with such a ruling.
21. See A. Dashwood, "Treatment of Public International Law by European Community Law", paper presented on 21 October 1999 at the Jean Monnet Symposium on the "Fundamental principles as inspiration and as source of law in the systems of the European Union and the WTO".
22. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, O.J. L 210/98 (1998). A panel has also ruled that these amendments do not comply with WTO law. See WT/DS27/RW/EEC, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas - Recourse to Article 21.5 by the European Communities, report of the panel of 12 April 1999. For a comment on this report, see G. Meier, "Bananas IV: der Bericht des WTO-Panels vom 12.4.99" (1999) 10 EuZW 428-431.
23. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, O.J. L 210/98 (1998). A panel has also ruled that these amendments do not comply with WTO law. See WT/DS27/RW/EEC, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas - Recourse to Article 21.5 by the European Communities, report of the panel of 12 April 1999. For a comment on this report, see G. Meier, "Bananas IV: der Bericht des WTO-Panels vom 12.4.99" (1999) 10 EuZW 428-431.
24. Case 9/70, Franz Grad v. Finanzamt Traunstein [1970] ECR 825; Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. C.A. Kupferberg KG [1982] ECR 3641; and Case C-280/93, Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973.
25. Case T-521/93, Atlanta AG and Others v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1707.
26. WT/DS27/AB/R, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, report of the Appellate Body of 9 September 1997. The Advocate General referred to the Appellate Body report of 25 September 1997. This is the date on which the Appellate Body report was adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body as provided for by Art. 17(14) of the DSU.
27. Opinion of Advocate General Mischo of 6 May 1999.
28. The Advocate General referred to Case C-208/93, Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973.
29. Case 5/71, Zuckerfabrik Schöppensted v. Council [1971] ECR 975.
30. Advocate General Lenz, however, did not exclude liability of the EC institutions for breach under such circumstances albeit under the "old" GATT regime. He argued that one should "not exclude the possibility that in exceptional cases an infringement of provisions of GATT might give rise to a liability in damages to the traders concerned. In particular, one might envisage a case where in such a situation the Community makes no use of the possibilities provided for in GATT of freeing itself from its obligations, but agrees that the dispute should be decided by a neutral tribunal, and then however refuses to comply with the decision". See para. 21 of his Opinion of 16 February 1995 in Case C-469/93, Amministrazione della Finanze dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA [1995] ECR 1-4533. As Montañà i Mora phrased it, "[O]ne may construe this intriguing statement as establishing that the Community's failure to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel report might give rise to liability in damages to the traders concerned". See M. Montañà i Mora, "Equilibrium - A Rediscovered Basis for the Court of Justice of the European Communities to Refuse Direct Effect to the Uruguay Round Agreements?" (1996) 30 J.W.T. 5; 43-59, at pp. 50-51.
31. Contra: J.H.J. Bourgeois, above, note 4, at p. 13.
32. See the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, O.J. L 217/3687 (1964).
33. See Art. 22 (1) of the Association Agreement.
34. Case 30/88, Greece v. Commission [1989] ECR 3711.
35. See e.g. Case C-192/89, S.Z. Sevince v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1990] ECR I-3461; Case C-237/91, Kazim Kus v. Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden [1992] ECR I-6781; Case C355/93, Hayriye Eroglu v. Land Baden-Württemberg [1994] ECR I-5113 and Case C-98/96, Kasim Ertanir v. Land Hessen [1997] ECR I-5179 and Case C-262/96, Sema Sürül v. Bundesantalt für Arbeit, judgment of 4 May 1999, not yet reported in the ECR.
36. N. Lavranos, above, note 4. See also A. Reinish, above, note 4, at p. 48.
37. Opinion 1/91, Draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6079.
38. In a subsequent opinion, the ECJ held that the new provisions of the EEA Agreement on the settlement of disputes were now compatible with the EC Trėaty. See Opinion 1/92, Opinion on the revised draft Agreement on the European Economic Area [1992] ECR I-2821.
39. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of Opinion 1/91, Draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6079.
40. P. Eeckhout, above, note 4, at p. 52.
41. See in particular paras 21 and 27 of the Opinion. See W. Van Gerven, "The Genesis of EEA Law and the Principles of Primacy and Direct Effect" (1992) 16 Fordham International Law Journal 955-989, at p. 968. It should be emphasised that the EEA Agreement as it now stands has direct effect if the criteria for direct effect are fulfilled. See S. Norberg et al., The European Economic Area: EEA Law - A Commentary on the EEA Agreement, (Fritzes, Stockholm, 1993) at p. 203.
42. See in particular paras 21 and 27 of the Opinion. See W. Van Gerven, "The Genesis of EEA Law and the Principles of Primacy and Direct Effect" (1992) 16 Fordham International Law Journal 955-989, at p. 968. It should be emphasised that the EEA Agreement as it now stands has direct effect if the criteria for direct effect are fulfilled. See S. Norberg et al., The European Economic Area: EEA Law - A Commentary on the EEA Agreement, (Fritzes, Stockholm, 1993) at p. 203.
43. Case 112/80, Firma Anton Dürbeck v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Flughafen [1981] ECR 1095.
44. EEC Restrictions on Imports of Apples from Chile, report of the panel of 10 November 1980, BISD 27S/98.
45. The ECJ decided that "[A]ccording to the uncontested information on this matter supplied by the Commission during the oral procedure the special GATT group charged with examining the conformity of the Community measures with the General Agreement found that in adopting the protective measures in issue the Commission did not infringe either Article I or Article II of that agreement." See para. 46 of the judgment. "Special GATT group" is a translation error. The ECJ obviously meant "GATT panel". See also J.H.J. Bourgeois, above, note 4, at p. 13, footnote 44.
46. See para. 45 of the judgment.
47. See also J.H.J. Bourgeois, above, note 4, at p. 13, at footnote 44; A. Ott, "The Friction Between GATT/ WTO Law and EC Law: Some Critical Remarks on the Case Law of the ECJ", in International Law and the Hague's 750th Anniversary, Heere (ed.), (T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 1999), 323-332, at p. 327; E.-U. Petersmann, "Constitutional Principles Governing the EEC's Commercial Policy", in The European Community's Commercial Policy after 1992: The Legal Dimension, Maresceau (ed.), (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 21-62, at p. 47 and E.-U. Petersmann, "Application of GATT by the European Communities" (1983) 20 CML. Rev. 397-437, at pp. 409-410.
48. See also J.H.J. Bourgeois, above, note 4, at p. 13, at footnote 44; A. Ott, "The Friction Between GATT/ WTO Law and EC Law: Some Critical Remarks on the Case Law of the ECJ", in International Law and the Hague's 750th Anniversary, Heere (ed.), (T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 1999), 323-332, at p. 327; E.-U. Petersmann, "Constitutional Principles Governing the EEC's Commercial Policy", in The European Community's Commercial Policy after 1992: The Legal Dimension, Maresceau (ed.), (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 21-62, at p. 47 and E.-U. Petersmann, "Application of GATT by the European Communities" (1983) 20 CML. Rev. 397-437, at pp. 409-410.
49. See also J.H.J. Bourgeois, above, note 4, at p. 13, at footnote 44; A. Ott, "The Friction Between GATT/ WTO Law and EC Law: Some Critical Remarks on the Case Law of the ECJ", in International Law and the Hague's 750th Anniversary, Heere (ed.), (T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, 1999), 323-332, at p. 327; E.-U. Petersmann, "Constitutional Principles Governing the EEC's Commercial Policy", in The European Community's Commercial Policy after 1992: The Legal Dimension, Maresceau (ed.), (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993), 21-62, at p. 47 and E.-U. Petersmann, "Application of GATT by the European Communities" (1983) 20 CML. Rev. 397-437, at pp. 409-410.
50. See M. Montañà i Mora, above, note 4, at p. 175. The ECJ has established the following criteria in order to determine whether a national "judicial" body qualifies as a court or tribunal for the purposes of establishing the ECJ's jurisdiction under Art. 234 of the EC Treaty (ex Art. 177): (i) the body concerned must be established by law; (ii) it must be a permanent body; (iii) its jurisdiction must be compulsory; (iv) the procedure before it must be inter partes; (v) it must apply the rule of law; and (vi) it must be an independent body. See Case C-416/96, Nour Eddline El-Yassinin v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] ECR I-1209. Although in a different context, it is submitted that a panel and, undoubtedly, the Appellate Body would satisfy these criteria.
51. Petersmann argues that the WTO dispute settlement system has contributed largely to a greater judicialisation of the international economic system and could inspire dispute settlement systems in other non-economic areas. See E.-U. Petersmann, "Dispute Settlement in International Economic Law - Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non-Economic Areas" (1999) 2 JIEL 189-248.
52. Eeckhout argues that "[W]here a violation is established the binding character of the agreement and the principle of legality should in my view trump any lack of direct effect." See P. Eeckhout, above, note 4, at p. 53. This line of reasoning implies that the direct effect of the WTO Agreement(s) is a per se condition which is then ignored.
53. The EC is bound by the WTO Agreement(s) by virtue of Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters falling within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), O.J. L 336/ 1 (1994).
54. Advocate General Saggio has argued that the WTO dispute settlement rules are not capable of limiting the jurisdiction of the ECJ for the following two reasons: (i) the WTO dispute settlement rules do not establish a judicial system but rather a conciliatory mechanism for the settlement of disputes (as the DSB is more political in nature and limits itself to the mere adoption of decisions or recommendations from the panels or the Appellate Body); and (ii) the establishment of a judicial body entrusted with the powers, not only to interpret and apply the WTO Agreements, but also to annul Community acts and decisions, would be incompatible with the EC's legal order and manifestly in breach of Art. 220 of the EC Treaty (ex Art. 164). See para. 23 of the Opinion of 25 February 1999 in Case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council judgment of the European Court of Justice of 24 November 1999, not yet reported in the ECR (author's translation). This line of reasoning is based on a misconception of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism as neither panels, nor the Appellate Body are able to invalidate Community acts. They can merely establish that a Community act infringes WTO law and recommend that the EC should bring its legislation in conformity with those rules. The "invocability" of a panel or Appellate Body report in a legal proceeding before the CFI or the ECJ is a completely different matter.
55. See P. Eeckhout, above, note 4, at pp. 53-54.
56. On this subject, see A. Chua, "The Precedential Effect of WTO Panel and Appellate Body Reports" (1998) 11 LJIL 45-61.
57. WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, report of the Appellate Body of 4 October 1996.
58. J.H. Bello, "The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less is More" (1996) 90 Am. J. Int'l L. 416 and T.M. Reiff and M. Forestal, "Revenge of the Push-Me, Pull-You: The Implementation Process Under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding" (1998) 32 Int'l Law 755-793, at p. 763.
59. J.H. Bello, "The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less is More" (1996) 90 Am. J. Int'l L. 416 and T.M. Reiff and M. Forestal, "Revenge of the Push-Me, Pull-You: The Implementation Process Under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding" (1998) 32 Int'l Law 755-793, at p. 763.
60. H. Horn and P. Mavroidis, "Remedies in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and developing Country Interests", paper dated 11 April 1999, 37 pp., at p. 14; J.H. Jackson, "The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding - Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation", in Cameron & Campbell (eds), Dispute Resolution in the WTO (Cameron & May, London, 1998), pp. 69-74, at p. 73. and J.H. Jackson, "Dispute Resolution and the WTO", paper presented at the Centre for International Development, Harvard University, 5-6 November 1999, at p. 7.
61. H. Horn and P. Mavroidis, "Remedies in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and developing Country Interests", paper dated 11 April 1999, 37 pp., at p. 14; J.H. Jackson, "The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding - Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation", in Cameron & Campbell (eds), Dispute Resolution in the WTO (Cameron & May, London, 1998), pp. 69-74, at p. 73. and J.H. Jackson, "Dispute Resolution and the WTO", paper presented at the Centre for International Development, Harvard University, 5-6 November 1999, at p. 7.
62. H. Horn and P. Mavroidis, "Remedies in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and developing Country Interests", paper dated 11 April 1999, 37 pp., at p. 14; J.H. Jackson, "The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding - Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation", in Cameron & Campbell (eds), Dispute Resolution in the WTO (Cameron & May, London, 1998), pp. 69-74, at p. 73. and J.H. Jackson, "Dispute Resolution and the WTO", paper presented at the Centre for International Development, Harvard University, 5-6 November 1999, at p. 7.
63. See also para. 29 of the Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro of 13 November 1997 in Case C-53/96, Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice [1998] ECR. I-3603. Timmermans has suggested that it cannot in any way be excluded that compensation may ultimately be a "provisoire qui dure", see C. Timmermans, "The Implementation of the Uruguay Round by the EC", in The Uruguay Round Results: A European Lawyers' Perspective (European Interuniversity Press, Brussels, 1995), 501-509, at p. 504. This situation cannot, a priori, be excluded but it would run counter to the spirit and objectives of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. The fact of maintaining the "illegal" measures in force would, in my view, give a right to damages to the European industries directly affected by the illegal measures or the sanctions.
64. P. Eeckhout, above, note 4, at p. 55.
65. Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95, T-Port GmbH v. Hauptzollampt Hamburg-Jonas [1998] ECR I-1023.
66. For an analysis of this case, see S. Peers, "Constitutional Principles and International Trade" (1999) 24 EL. Rev. 185-195.
67. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on additional rules for the application of Council (EEC) Regulation No. 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1442/93, O.J. L 49/13 (1995).
68. Case C-208/93, Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973.
69. Framework Agreement on Bananas, Annex to Part I, Section I-B (tariff quotas) in Schedule LXXX -European Communities.
70. Case C-122/95, Germany v. Council [1998] ECR I-973.
71. WT/DS27/R, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, report of the panel of 22 May 1997. WT/DS27/AB/R, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, report of the Appellate Body of 9 September 1997.
72. WT/DS27/R, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, report of the panel of 22 May 1997. WT/DS27/AB/R, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, report of the Appellate Body of 9 September 1997.
73. Peers argues that the T-Port III judgment reflects the willingness of the ECJ to extend (modestly) the general principles of EC law to international trade. See S. Peers, above, note 47, at p. 195. The author suggests reversing the order and arguing that the ECJ was willing to apply international trade law (read WTO law) principles in the context of the EC legal order.
74. P. Pescatore, "Free World Trade and the European Union - The Reconciliation of Interests and the Revision of Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Framework of the WTO", lecture presented in June 1998 in Brussels at a Conference organised by the Academy of European Law Trier. The "glimmer of hope" detected by Pescatore refers to the issue of direct effect of WTO law rather than the effect of Appellate Body reports in the EC legal order.
75. T. Cottier, above, note 4, at pp. 374-375.
76. Reinisch has argued that the European companies affected by the sanctions imposed by the United States following the EC's non-compliance with the Appellate Body reports in the bananas and hormones cases would be entitled to claim damages. See A. Reinisch, above, note 4. Bronchers has taken a similar view. See M.C.E.J. Bronckers, "Aansprakelijkheid EU voor WTO-schending wel mogelijk" (1999) VNO-NCW Forum.
77. See e.g., Case T-231/97, New Europe Consulting Ltd. and Michael P. Brown v. Commission [1999] CMLR 1452 (judgment of 9 July 1999).
78. Case T-521/93, Atlanta AG and others v. Council and Commission [1996] ECR II-1707.
79. Case T-572/93, Odigitria AAE v. Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2025.
80. P. Gasparon, "The Transposition of the Principle of Member State Liability into the Context of External Relations" (1999) 10 EJIL 605-624, at p. 620. See also more generally, S. Schmall, "Ungereimtheiten und Rchtsschutzlücken bei der ausservertraglichen Haftung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft" (1999) 2 ZeuS 415-429.
81. P. Gasparon, "The Transposition of the Principle of Member State Liability into the Context of External Relations" (1999) 10 EJIL 605-624, at p. 620. See also more generally, S. Schmall, "Ungereimtheiten und Rchtsschutzlücken bei der ausservertraglichen Haftung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft" (1999) 2 ZeuS 415-429.
82. See P. Gasparon, above, note 60, at pp. 620-623 and the references to relevant case law and literature.