«(Appeal – Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC – Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a hormonal action – Prohibition on the importation from third countries of meat from farm animals to which those substances have been administered – Application for damages – Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed thereto – Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures – Recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body)»

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Not possible to rely on the GATT rules in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act – Exceptions – Community measure intended to implement a GATT rule or expressly and specifically referring thereto – Judicial review – Precluded before expiry of any reasonable period granted to the Community for compliance with the WTO rules (EC Treaty, Art. 178 (now Art. 235 EC) and Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC)) Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty is subject to a number of conditions relating to the illegality of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. Given their nature and structure, the WTO agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions. It is only where the Community has intended to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or where the Community measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the WTO agreements, that it is for the Court to review the legality of the Community measure in question in the light of the WTO rules.In any event, as regards the period prior to the expiry of the 15-month period granted to the Community for the purpose of complying with its obligations under the WTO rules, the Community Courts cannot carry out that review, particularly not in the context of an action for damages under Article 178 of the Treaty, without rendering ineffective the grant of a reasonable period for compliance with the recommendations or rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body, as provided for in the dispute settlement system put in place by the WTO agreements.see paras 51-53, 62

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court) 30 September 2003 (1)

((Appeal – Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC – Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a hormonal action – Prohibition on the importation from third countries of meat from farm animals to which those substances have been administered – Application for damages – Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed thereto – Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures – Recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body))

In Case C-93/02 P,

appellant,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00

the other parties to the proceedings being:

intervener at first instance,

THE COURT (Full Court),,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: S. Alber,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from Biret International SA, the Council and the Commission at the hearing on 25 March 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 May 2003,

gives the following

Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

The Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes

Admissibility

Substance

First plea in law

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

Second plea

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Full Court),

hereby:

Rodríguez Iglesias

Puissochet

Wathelet

Schintgen

Timmermans

Gulmann

Edward

Jann

Skouris

Macken

Colneric

von Bahr

Cunha Rodrigues

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 September 2003.

R. Grass

G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias

Registrar

President