| Summary: | <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:KO;} p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText {mso-style-noshow:yes; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-indent:-21.25pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:KO;} p.ArticleText, li.ArticleText, div.ArticleText {mso-style-name:"Article Text"; mso-style-update:auto; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:KO;} span.Funotenzeichen1 {mso-style-name:Fußnotenzeichen1; vertical-align:super;} /* Page Definitions */ @page {mso-footnote-separator:url("file:///C:/DOKUME~1/mlippold/LOKALE~1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_header.htm") fs; mso-footnote-continuation-separator:url("file:///C:/DOKUME~1/mlippold/LOKALE~1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_header.htm") fcs; mso-endnote-separator:url("file:///C:/DOKUME~1/mlippold/LOKALE~1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_header.htm") es; mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("file:///C:/DOKUME~1/mlippold/LOKALE~1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_header.htm") ecs;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="ArticleText"><span lang="EN-GB">While the European Community has been repeatedly held liable for its non-contractual unlawful acts on the basis of Art. 288.2 EC,<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: " lang="EN-GB">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> the European courts have long been reluctant to find explicit wording that would establish or reject a liability regime for unlawful EC action.<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: " lang="EN-GB">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Finally in <em>FIAMM</em>, the Court of First Instance (CFI) took the decisive step of accepting such liability in principle and developed the criteria for its application.<a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: " lang="EN-GB">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The judgement of the CFI represents a remarkable innovation in two respects. First, it makes reviewable all conduct of the Community and its institutions for the purposes of compensation and thus opens the door to a vast area of liability. Second, it is the very first indication that the EC is to pay compensation for behaviour which is deemed lawful (merely) from the European perspective. In other words, the CFI has undercut the European sovereignty shield that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) so carefully installed in order to protect the European legal order from being pierced by Public International Law. As remarkable and thought provoking this suggestion is, the door has been shut by the ECJ on its recent review of the <em>FIAMM</em> decision. In its judgement of 9 September 2008, the Court made it explicitly clear that as of now, there is no such liability of the European Community.<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: " lang="EN-GB">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> </span></p> <p class="ArticleText"><span lang="EN-GB">For many, the decision comes a no surprise; for the European industries subject to WTO retaliatory measures like <em>FIAMM</em>, it does not worsen their already low standing before EC courts. Why the judgement of the ECJ must, in fact, be welcomed and preferred to that of the CFI is laid down in the following.</span></p> <div><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br /> <hr size="1" /><!--[endif]--> <div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: ">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>Already the ECJ in <em>Lütticke v. Commission</em>, C-4/69, (1971) E.C.R. 325; <em>Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v. Council</em>, C-5/71, (1971) E.C.R. 975; <em>HNL v. Council and Commission</em>, Joined C-83, 94/76, 4, 15, 40/77, (1978) E.C.R. 1209; <em>Mulder et al. v. Council and Commission</em>, Joined C-104/89, 37/90, (1992) E.C.R. I-3061; also the Court of First Instance in <em>African Fruit Company v. Council and Commission</em>, Joined T-64/01, 65/01, (2004) E.C.R. II-521.</span></p></div> <div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: ">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>See, for instance, <em>Compagnie d’approvisionnement v. Commision</em>, Joined C-9, 11/71, (1972) E.C.R. 391; <em>Développement SA et Clemessy v. Commission</em>, C-267/82, (1986) E.C.R. 1907; <em>Dorsch Consult v. Council</em>, C-237/98 P, (2000) E.C.R. I-4549 and <em>Förde-Reederei v. Council and Commission</em>, C-170/00, (2002) E.C.R. II-515.</span></p></div> <div id="ftn3"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: ">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="FR"><span> </span><em>FIAMM</em>, T-69/00,<em> </em>(2005) E.C.R. II-5393, paras 157, 158.</span></p></div> <div id="ftn4"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4"><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="Funotenzeichen1"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: ">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><em>FIAMM</em>, Joined C-120, 121/06 P, para. 176.</span></p></div></div>
|
|---|
