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

Journal of International Economic Law

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 713-722

  Zonnekeyn, Geert A ^a  

^a Lovell White Durrant   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346728664     PISSN: 13693034     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiel/2.4.713     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Opinion of 6 May 1999 in Case C-104/97 P, Atlanta AG v. Commission and Council, not yet reported in the ECR. At the time of writing only the French version of the Opinion was available.
2. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
3. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
4. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
5. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO-Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
6. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
7. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
8. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
9. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
10. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
11. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
12. See on this particular question, J. M. Beneyto, 'The EU and the WTO. Direct Effect of the New Dispute Settlement System?', 1996, EuZW, 295; 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 1, N. Blokker and S. Muller, eds, (Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994, 149-64; N. Lavranos, 'Die Rechtswerkung von WTO panel reports im Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrecht sowie im deutschen Verfassungsrecht', Europarecht, May-June 1999, 289, and A. Weber and F. Moos, 'Rechtswirkungen von WTO- Streitbeilegungsentscheidungen im Gemeinschaftrecht', EuZW, 1999, 229. Others have briefly touched upon the question, see, e.g., 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 (New York: Oceana Publications 1993), 10-13; P. Eeckhout, 'The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal Systems', CML Rev 11 (1994), 11, at 51-5; T. Cottier, 'Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union', CML Rev (1998) 325, at 369-75; M. Montañà I Mora, 'A GATT with Teeth: Law Wins Over Politics in the Resolution of International Trade Disputes', Colum J Transnat'l L (1993) 103, at 175-6; J. Nyberg, 'Will the Fight against the European Community Common Banana Market Lead to Conflicts of a Constitutional Character?', ELSA Selected Papers on European Law (1997), 211, at 244-5; A. Ott, GATT und WTO im Gemeinschaftsrecht (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1997), 242-3 and C. Schmid, 'Immer wieder Bananen: Der Status des GATT/WTO - Systems im Gemeinschaftsrecht', NJW (1998) 190, at 196.
13. Atlanta is a German banana trader who has been involved in a number of legal proceedings before the CFI and the ECJ whereby it challenged the EC banana regime.
14. Case T-521/93, Atlanta AG and Others v. EC, [1996] ECR 11-1707. See OJ 142/11 of 10 May 1997 for a summary of the pleas in law and the main arguments adduced in support. It is interesting to note that there are other cases pending before the CFI where reference has been made to the panel and Appellate Body reports issued in the banana case. See Case T-2/99, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Council, OJ C 71/35 of 13 March 1999; Case T-3/99, Bananatrading GmbH v. Council, OJ C 71/35 of 13 March 1999; Case T-18/99, Cordis Obst- und Gemüsegrosshandel GmbH v. Commission, OJ C 86/28 of 27 March 1999; Case T-30/99, Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH v. Commission, OJ C 86/33 of 27 March 1999 and T-52/99, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission, OJ C 121/19 of 1 May 1999.
15. Council Regulation (EC) No. 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas, OJ L 47/1 of 25 February 1993.
16. 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 refers 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 ('DSB') as provided for by Article 17.14 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ('DSU').
17. Paras 3 to 23 of the Opinion.
18. The Advocate General referred to Case C-208/93, Germany v. Council, [1994] ECR I-4973.
19. See Case 5/71, Zuckerfabrik Schöppensted v. Council, [1971] ECR 975.
20. Advocate General Lenz, however, did not exclude liability of the EC 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 GA TT 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 paragraph 21 of his Opinion of 16 February 1995 in Case C-469/93, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA, [1995] ECR I-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, AJIL (1997), 152, at 155.
21. Advocate General Lenz, however, did not exclude liability of the EC 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 GA TT 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 paragraph 21 of his Opinion of 16 February 1995 in Case C-469/93, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA, [1995] ECR I-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, AJIL (1997), 152, at 155.
22. Contra: J. H. J. Bourgeois, above n 2, at 13.
23. See the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, OJ L 217/3687 of 29 December 1964.
24. See Article 22(1) of the Association Agreement.
25. Case 30/88, Greece v. Commission, [1989] ECR 3711.
26. 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. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, judgment of 4 May 1999, not yet reported in the ECR. For an analysis of the earlier case law, see e.g. P. Gilsdorf, 'Les Organes institués par des Accords Communautaires: Effets Juridiques de leurs Décisions', RMC (1992) 328.
27. 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. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, judgment of 4 May 1999, not yet reported in the ECR. For an analysis of the earlier case law, see e.g. P. Gilsdorf, 'Les Organes institués par des Accords Communautaires: Effets Juridiques de leurs Décisions', RMC (1992) 328.
28. 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. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, judgment of 4 May 1999, not yet reported in the ECR. For an analysis of the earlier case law, see e.g. P. Gilsdorf, 'Les Organes institués par des Accords Communautaires: Effets Juridiques de leurs Décisions', RMC (1992) 328.
29. See N. Lavranos, above n 2.
30. Opinion 1/91, Draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area, [1991] ECR I-6079.
31. 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 Treaty. See Opinion 1/92, Opinion on the revised draft Agreement on the European Economic Area, [1992] ECR I-2821.
32. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of Opinion 1/91, Draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6079.
33. P. Eeckhout, above n 2, at 52.
34. See in particular paragraph 21 of the Opinion. See W. van Gerven, 'The Genesis of EEA Law and the Principles of Primacy and Direct Effect', Fordham Int'l LJ (1992/93), 955, at 968.
35. Case 112/80, Firma Anton Dürbeck v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Flughafen [1981] ECR 1095. For a comment see M. C. E. J. Bronckers, SEW (1982), 184.
36. Case 112/80, Firma Anton Dürbeck v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Flughafen [1981] ECR 1095. For a comment see M. C. E. J. Bronckers, SEW (1982), 184.
37. EEC Restrictions on Imports of Apples from Chile, report of the panel of 10 November 1980, BISD 27S/98.
38. 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 paragraph 46 of the judgment. 'Special GATT group' is a translation error. The ECJ obviously meant 'GATT panel' See also J. H. J. Bourgeois, above n 2, at 13, fn 44.
39. See paragraph 45 of the judgment.
40. See also J. H. J. Bourgeois, above n 2, at 13, fn 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, W. P. Heere, ed (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press 1999), 323-32, at 327 and E.-U. Petersmann, 'Application of GATT by the European Communities', CMLRev 397 (1983), 409-10.
41. See also J. H. J. Bourgeois, above n 2, at 13, fn 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, W. P. Heere, ed (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press 1999), 323-32, at 327 and E.-U. Petersmann, 'Application of GATT by the European Communities', CMLRev 397 (1983), 409-10.
42. See also J. H. J. Bourgeois, above n 2, at 13, fn 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, W. P. Heere, ed (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press 1999), 323-32, at 327 and E.-U. Petersmann, 'Application of GATT by the European Communities', CMLRev 397 (1983), 409-10.
43. The notion 'panel and Appellate Body reports' refers to reports adopted by the DSB pursuant to Article 17.14 of the DSU.
44. See M. Montañà I Mora, above n 2, at 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 Article 234 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 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-Yassini v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, judgment of the ECJ of 2 March 1999, not yet reported in the ECR. Although in a different context, it is submitted that a panel and, undoubtedly, the Appellate Body would satisfy those criteria.
45. See M. Montañà I Mora, above n 2, at 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 Article 234 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 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-Yassini v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, judgment of the ECJ of 2 March 1999, not yet reported in the ECR. Although in a different context, it is submitted that a panel and, undoubtedly, the Appellate Body would satisfy those criteria.
46. The amount of literature devoted to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is enormous. For a recent contribution, see D. Palmeter and Petros C. Mavroidis, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Practice and Procedure (The Hague: Kluwer Law International 1999).
47. Petersmann argues that the WTO dispute settlement system has contributed largely to a greater judicialization 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', J Int'l Econ L (1999), 189.
48. 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 n 2, at 53. This line of reasoning implies that the direct effect of the WTO Agreement(s) is a per se condition which is then ignored.
49. 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), OJ L 336/1 of 23 December 1994.
50. Advocate General Saggio has recently argued that the WTO dispute settlement rules are not capable of limiting the competences 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 Article 220 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 164). See para 23 of the Opinion of 25 February 1999 in case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council, not yet reported in the ECR. 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 complete different matter.
51. See P. Eeckhout, above n 2, at 53-4.
52. On this subject, see A. Chua, 'The Precedential Effect of WTO Panel and Appellate Body Reports', LJIL (1998), 45.
53. 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.
54. See also paragraph 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 the compensation may ultimately be a 'provisoire qui dure', see C. W. A. Timmermans, 'The Implementation of the Uruguay Round by the EC', in The Uruguay Round Results: A European Lawyers' Perspective (Brussels: European Interuniversity Press 1995), 501-9, at 504. This might certainly be the case, but it would run counter to the spirit and objectives of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism as such. 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 sanctions.
55. P. Eeckhout, above n 2, at 55.