Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T08:06:37.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining the Origin of Goods for the Purposes of Article 133 of the EEC Treaty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article deals with the question which rules of origin to apply in order to determine the origin of products imported from the non-independent territories associated with the European Communities. This is examined by means of an analysis of the nature of the association of these countries with the EC, the text of Article 133 of the EEC Treaty, as well as purpose and relevant objectives of the association. It will also be examined whether a restrictive rule of origin for the purpose of preventing trade deflection is compatible with the EEC Treaty. The main thesis is that in the trade between the EC and the ‘Overseas Countries and Territories’ (OCT) the same rules of origin should apply as for the intra-community trade.

Type
Leading Articles
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 167 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1990

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. The non-European countries and territories which have special links with Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and are constitionally associated with the EC, are called ‘countries and territories’ (An. 131 EEC-Treaty). See on the concept of constitutional association with the EC: Petersmann, Struktur und aktuelle Rechlsfragen des Assoziationsrechts, 13 ZaöVR 266–309 (1973).

2. Reg. No. 802/68/EEC, OJ. 1968, L 148/1.

3. Most recently Dec. No. 86/283/EC, OJ. 1986 L 175/1, annex II; see also ‘Explanatoiy Notes on the Rules of Origin for Trade with the African, Caribean and Pacific States and the Overseas Countries and Territories’, OJ. 1976, C 158.

4. See Forrester, , EEC Custom Law: Rules of Origin and Preferential Duty Treatment - Part I & II, 1980 European Law Review 167–187, 257–278.Google Scholar

5. See McQueen, , Lomé and the Protective Effect of Rules of Origin, 16 Journal of World Trade Law 119–132 (1982).Google Scholar

6. Preamble of the EEC Treaty.

7. Cf. P.J.G. Kapteijn and P. VerLoren van Themaat, Introduction to the Law of the European Communities (L.W. Gormley ed.) 190 (1989); See on the constitutional association with the OCT: P. Olyslager,De Associatie van de Overzeese Gebieden met de Europese Economische Gemeenschap (1958); P.B.Cousté, ĽAssociation des Pays ď Outre-mer à la CEE (1959); P.HJ.M. Houben, De Associatie van Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen met de Europese Economische Gemeenschap (1965); G. van Benthem van den Berg, De Associatie van Afrikaanse Stolen met de Europese Economische Gemeenschap(1962); Gonidec, , ĽAssociation des Pays ď Outre-mer au Marché Commun, IV Ann. Fr. Dr. Int 593–619 (1958)Google Scholar; Petersmann, , Struktur und aktuelle Rechtsfragen des Assoziationsrechts, 13 ZaöVR 266–311 (1973)Google Scholar; Brinkhorst, , Special Relationships and the European Communities; Netherlands Antilles and Surinam, in M.E. Bathurst et al. (eds.), Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community (1972);P.N.C. Okigbo, Africa and the Common Market (1967)Google Scholar; Luchaire, , Les Associations à la Communauté Economique Européenne, 144 Recueil des Cours A.D.I. 241–307 (1975)Google Scholar; Lemaignen, , ĽAssociation des Pays ďOutre-mer au Marché Commun, 8 Annuaire European Yearbook 37–57 (1961)Google Scholar; Luchaire, ĽAssociation des Pays ďOutre-mer aux Communautés Européennes, in Batiffol et al. (eds.), Les Problémes Juridiques et Economiques du Marché Commun, Colloque des Facultés de Droit 221–243 (1960); Everting, , Die Neureglung des Assoziationsverhältnissess zwischen den Europäischen Wirtschaflsgemeinscnaft und den afrikanischen Stamen und Madagaskar sowie den überseeischen Ländern und Hoheitsgebieten, 24 ZaöVR 472–574 (1964)Google Scholar; L.C. Ananiades, ĽAssociation aux Communautés Européennes 63–83 (1967) and Hay, , The Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories, in E. Stein and Th.L. Nicholson (eds.), American Enterprise in the European Common Market - A Legal Profile, Vol.II, 647 (1960).Google Scholar

8. In this respect the relation with the OCT is erroneously listed under external relations in e.g. the XXIIIth Report of the Commission on the Communities activites in the year 1989 (Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen, XXIIIe Algemeen Verslag over de werkzaamheden van de Europese Gemeenschappen,1989, 374–375 (1990)), as well as in Secretariat Général du Conseil des Communauté Européens, Trente-Sixieme Apercu des Activités du Conseil, ler Janvier - 31 décembre 1988 at 122–126. A similar mistake is made by D. Lasok and W. Cairns in The Customs Laws of the European Economic Community, at 226 and 229–230 (1983).

9. See Lipstein, , The Legal Structure of Association Agreement with the EEC., XLVII British Yearbook of International Law 201–226 (1974–1975).Google Scholar

10. P. Olyslager, supra note 8, at 22–23; G. Van Bentem van den Bergh, supra note 7 at 52.

11. See G. Van Benthem van den Bergh, supra note 7, at 91–94, and Petersmann, supra note 7, at 286–291, and Cf. Luchaire, supra note 7, at 286 and 289; Ulrich, Der zeitliche Geltungsbereich der Assoziation der AASM an die EWG, 130 Zeitschrin fur das gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht 298–320(1968).

12. 147/73, ECR 1973, 1543.

13. See also P. Oliver, Free Movement of Goods in the EEC 27 (1982), but See D. Lasok and W. Caims,supra note 8, at 229–230 who fail to distinguish the contractual association from the constitutional association and misread Part IV of the Treaty of Rome entirely. It should be noted that the authors do not show any awareness of the Lensing case (supra note 12), nor with Council's decision of 18/19–10–1960, O.J. 1960/10.

14. See e.g. 7/68 Commission v. Italy, ECR 1968, 423; 155/73 Sacchi, ECR 1974, 409; 52/79 Procureur du Roi v. Debauve, ECR 1980, 833; 7/78 R. v. Thomson, Johnson and Woodiwiss, ECR 1978, 2247.

15. P. Oliver, supra note 13, at 13 summerizes the meaning of goods as follows: “Goods” means “products which can be volved in money and which can be capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions”. Neither television nor “means of payments” are “goods”.

16. This term is used to distinguish the prospective implications of Article 132 section 1 EEC Treaty.

17. OJ. 1968, L. 148/1.

18. Reg. No. 1318/71/EEC, OJ. L 139/7.

19. Most recently Council Decision of June 30, 1986 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community, 86/283/EEC, OJ. 1986, L 175/1.

20. See Forrester, supra note 4 and McQueen, supra note 5.

21. McQueen supra note 5, at 119.

22. Id., Most recently reconfirmed by the EC Commission in Press Release P-64 (1989).

23. 91/78 ECR 1979, 935.

24. Dec. No. 86/47/EEC, OJ. 1986, L 63/95.

25. In ruling on the comparable Article 2(1) of the Yaoundeé Convention (1963) the Court has decided in favour of direct effect, 87/75 Conceria Danielle Bresciani v. Amministrazione delle Finanze, ECR 1976.

26. See Oliver, supra note 13, at 8–9.

27. Cf. Corfu Channel case (merits), 1949 I.CJ. Rep. 86, and Lighthouses Cases (France v. Greece) P.C.U.Rep. 2813 (Ser. AB No. 62 at 13).

28. It must be acknowledged that qualifying terms in a treaty are not to be disregarded as superflous. Cf. Serbian Loans case, P.C.IJ. Rep. (Ser. A, Nos 20/21 at 32) but See the caution in International Status of South and West Africa, 1950 I.CJ. Rep. 139.

29. See Case 91/78, supra note 23.

30. 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v. Kupferberg /80 Polydor Limited, ECR 1982 at 329.

31. Cf. similar reasoning in Free City of Danzig and I.L.O., P.C.U. Rep. (Sen B, no. 18, at 11).

32. See P.B. Cousteé;, supra note 7, at 127; G. Van Benthem van den Bergh, supra note 7, at 52.

33. Cf. Gonidec, supra note 7, at 603; Couste\ supra note 7, at 126–129 speaks of a “Grand Marché’; Cf. P.N.C. Okigbo, supra note 7, at 30–32.

34. R.H. Lauwaars, Lawfulness and Legal Force of Community Decisions 212 (1973).

35. By analogy of the combined Cases 80 and 81/77, OJ. 1978, 927 it is submitted that the stipulations of Article 133(1) apply not only to measures of the Member States, but also to measures of the EC itself.