JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
10 March 2005 (1)
(Common commercial policy - Canned tuna originating in Thailand and the Philippines - Mediation within the WTO - Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 - Tariff quota)
In Case C-342/03,APPLICATION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 4 August 2003, by Kingdom of Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano, acting as Agents,defendant,
supported by:Commission of the European Communities, represented by X. Lewis and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,intervener,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 December 2004,
gives the following
-The tariff quota shall be opened annually for an initial period of five years. Its volume for the first two years shall be fixed as follows: - 25 000 tons from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004, - 25 750 tons from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005.-
-The tariff quota shall be divided into four parts, as follows:(a) a quota of 52% of the annual volume, with the order number 09.2005, for imports originating in Thailand; and(b) a quota of 36% of the annual volume, with the order number 09.2006, for imports originating in the Philippines; and(c) a quota of 11% of the annual volume, with the order number 09.2007, for imports originating in Indonesia; and(d) a quota of 1% of the annual volume, with the order number 09.2008, for imports originating in other third countries.-
The first plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of Community preferenceArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The second plea in law, alleging distortion of competitionArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The third plea in law, alleging procedural irregularitiesArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Cotonou Agreement Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the preferential agreements with the ACP States and the States belonging to the -special arrangement to combat illegal drug production and trafficking-Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectationsArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The seventh plea in law, alleging failure to state reasonsArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powersArguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
1 - Language of the case: Spanish.