Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:22:44.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biret International SA v. Council of the European Union. Case C-93/02 P. 2003 ECR I-10497; Établissements Biret & Cie SA v. Council of the European Union. Case C-94/02 P. 2003 ECR I-10565

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Patricia Egli
Patricia Egli*
Affiliation:
University of St. Gallen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 230 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Treaty Establishing the European Community, Mar. 25,1957, 298 UNTS 11, as amended by Treaty Of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 340) 1, as amended by Treaty Of Nice, Feb. 26, 2001, 2001 O.J. (C 80) 1, consolidated version reprinted in 2002 O.J. (C 325) 33 [hereinafter EC Treaty],

2 The actual language is “prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of B-agonists.” See Council Directive 96/22/EC, infra note 6. For brevity, this case report will refer simply to the use of hormones in raising livestock.

3 Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Apr. 15,1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, in World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 59(1999) [hereinafter The Legal Texts].

4 See Opinion of Advocate General Alber (May 15, 2003) [hereinafter AG Opinion, Biret judgment], Case C- 93/02 P, Biret International SA v. Council (Eur. Ct. Justice Sept. 30, 2003) [hereinafter Biret judgment]; Opinion of Advocate General Alber (May 15, 2003) [hereinafter AG Opinion, Établissements Biret judgment], Case C- 94/02 P, Établissements Biret & Cie SAv. Council (Eur. Ct. Justice Sept. 30, 2003) [hereinafter Établissements Biret judgment]. See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm>, for its recent judgments and the opinions of the advocates general.

5 Biret judgment, supra note 4; Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4.

6 Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 Concerning the Prohibition of the Use in Stockfarming of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal or Thyrostatic Action and of β-Agonists, and Repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC, 1996 O.J. (L 125) 3. European Union legal documents are available at <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.html>.

7 Council Directive 81/602/EEC of 31 July 1981 Concerning the Prohibition on Certain Substances Having Hormonal Action and of any Substances Having Thyrostatic Action, 1981 O.J. (L 222) 32; Council Directive 88/ I46/EEC of 7 March 1988 Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farming of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal Action, 1988O.J.(L70) 16.

8 Panel Report, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WTO Docs. WT/DS26/R/USA & WT/DS48/R/CAN (Aug. 18, 1997) (adopted Feb. 13, 1998).

9 Appellate Body Report, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), VVTO Docs. WT/DS26/AB/R & WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998) (adopted Feb. 13, 1998); see David, A. Wirth, Case Report: European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, 92 AJIL 755 (1998)Google Scholar.

10 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, in THE LEGAL TEXTS, supra note 3, at 354.

11 EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Arbitration Under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, WTO Doc. WT/DS26/15 (May 29, 1998).

12 On September 22, 2003, more than four years after the reasonable period of time granted to the EC to comply with the DSB decision has lapsed, Directive 2003/7 4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Council Directive 96/22/EC Concerning the Prohibition on the Use in Stockfarming of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal Thyrostatic Action and of β-agonists was finally adopted, 2003 O.J. (L 262) 17. Although the EC claims that this legislation is now compatible with WTO law since it is based on new scientific evidence, the United States and Canada have not yet accepted this assertion and maintain the suspension of their concessions in relation to imports from the EC. In November 2004, the EC therefore requested consultations with the United States and Canada pursuant to Article XXII: 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, in THE LEGAL TEXTS, supra note 3,atl7,andArticle4oftheDSU.SeeWTODocs.WT/DS320/lG/L/713&WT/DS321/lG/L/714(Nov. 10,2004).

13 See Case C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council, 1999 ECR1-8395, para. 47; see also Patricia Egli & Kokott, Juliane, Case Report: Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, 94 AJIL 740 (2000)Google Scholar.

14 CaseT-174/00, Biret International SA v. Council, 2002 ECR 11-17, para. 61 [hereinafter Biret CFI judgment]; Case T-210/00, Établissements Biret & Cie SA v. Council, 2002 ECR 11-47, para. 71 [hereinafter Établissements Biret CFI judgment].

15 See Case C-104/97 P, Atlanta AG v. Commission & Council, 1999 ECR 1-6983.

16 See supra note 12.

17 Biret CFI judgment, supra note 14, para. 67; Établissements Biret CFI judgment, supra note 14, para. 77.

18 Biret CFI judgment, supra note 14, para. 61; Établissements Biret CFI judgment, supra note 14, para. 71.

19 AG Opinion, Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 120; AG Opinion, Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 120.

20 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Oct. 30, 1947, TIAS No. 1700, 55 UNTS 194.

21 AG Opinion, Biret judgment, supra note 4, paras. 74-75; AG Opinion, Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, paras. 74-75.

22 See Joined Cases C-6/90 & C-9/90, Francovich v. Italian Republic, 1991 ECR 1-5357, para. 37.

23 AG Opinion, Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 94; AG Opinion, Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 94

24 AG Opinion, Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 114; AG Opinion, Établissements Biretjudgment, supra note 4, para. 114.

25 Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 57; Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 60.

26 Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 59; Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 62.

27 Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 51; Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 54.

28 Biret judgment, supra note 4, paras. 63-64; Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, paras. 66-67.

29 Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 57; Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 60.

30 Case C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council, 1999 ECR 1-8395, para. 47; Joined Cases C-27/00 & C- 122/00, Ex parte Omega Air Ltd, 2002 ECR 1-2569, para. 93; Case C-76/00 P, Petrotub v. Council, 2003 ECR I- 79, para. 53.

31 See Case C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision Co. v. Council, 1991 ECR 1-2069, para. 31.

32 See Case C-70/87, Fédération de l’industrie de l’huilerie de la CEE (Fediol) v. Commission, 1989 ECR 1781, para. 19.

33 Biret Opinion, supra note 4, para. 114; Établissements Biret Opinion, supra note 4, para. 114.

34 Portuguese Republic, paras. 42-47.

35 This issue has been the object of a fierce debate. See Judith, Hippler Bello, The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More, 90 AJIL 416 (1996)Google Scholar; John, H. Jackson, The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation, 91 AJIL 60 (1997)Google Scholar; Judith, H. Bello, Book Review, 95 AJIL 984 (2001)Google Scholar; John, H. Jackson, International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to Comply or Option to “Buy Out”? 98 AJIL 109 (2004)Google Scholar [hereinafter International Law Status].

36 International Law Status, supra note 35, at 123; Cottier, Thomas, Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union, Common Mkt. L. Rev. 325, 370–72 (1998)Google Scholar: Geert, A. Zonnekeyn, 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, 34 J. World Trade 93, 103 (2000)Google Scholar.

37 Geert, A. Zonnekeyn, EC Liability for Non-implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions—Are the Dice Cast ? 7 J. Int’l Econ. L. 488 (2004)Google Scholar.

38 Joined Cases C-6/90 & C-9/90, Francovich v. Italian Republic, 1991 ECR 1-5357, paras. 34-35.

39 Article 249(3) of the EC Treaty, supra note 1, provides: “A directive shall be binding, as to the results to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.”

40 Geert, A. Zonnekeyn, EC Liability for the Non-implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions—Advocate General Alber Proposes a ‘Copernican Innovation’ in the Case Law of the ECJ, 6J. Int’l Econ. L. 761, 764–65 (2003)Google Scholar: Kaddous, Christine, The Biret Cases: An Open Door to EC Liability for the Non-implementation of a WTO Dispute Settlement Decision? 2 Eur. L. Rep. 58 (2004)Google Scholar.

41 Case 5/71, Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v. Council, 1971 ECR 975, para. 11; Joined Cases T-195/94 & T- 202/94, Quiller v. Council, 1997 ECRII-2247, para. 49; Case C-352/98 P, Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA v. Commission, 2000 ECR 1-5291, paras. 41-44.

42 Biret CFI judgment, supra note 14, para. 61; Établissements Biret CFI judgment, supra note 14, para. 71.

43 AG Opinion, Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 117; AG Opinion, Établissements Biret judgment, supra note 4, para. 117.

44 United States—Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, WTO Doc. WT/DS152/R (Dec. 22, 1999) (adopted Jan. 27, 2000).

45 Id., para. 7.73.

46 Joined Cases 5/66, 7/66, & 13/66-24/66, Firma E. Kampffmeyer v. Commission, 1967 ECR 245, 262.

47 Zonnekeyn, supra note 40, at 768; Ernst-Ulrich, Petersmann, The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: International Law, International Organizations, and Dispute Settlement 238 (1997)Google Scholar.