This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/048/45
Case T-383/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Beamglow v Parliament and Others (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)
Case T-383/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Beamglow v Parliament and Others (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)
Case T-383/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Beamglow v Parliament and Others (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)
JO C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 24–25
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.2.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 48/24 |
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Beamglow v Parliament and Others
(Case T-383/00) (1)
(Non-contractual liability of the Community - Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects - Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions - Causal link - Unusual and special damage)
(2006/C 48/45)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Beamglow Ltd (St Ives, Cambridgeshire (United Kingdom)) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
Defendants: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos and K. Bradley, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by S. Marquardt and M. Bishop, acting as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by P. Kuijper, C. Brown and E. Righini, acting as Agents)
Intervener in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently by E. Braquehais Conesa, acting as Agents)
Application for
compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on imports of the applicant's boxes made of printed and decorated paperboard, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1) |
Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Parliament; |
|
2) |
Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded; |
|
3) |
Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission; |
|
4) |
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |