第2次的筆記 ( 前面貼的筆記不見了>< 所以貼在這裡)
1善用學校圖書館
2在Google註冊登入,使用快訊,能夠找到眾多的資料
3搜尋以書找書(跳耀式搜尋)
4資料搜尋技巧與建立資料庫
作業
研究生: 朱世璋
論文名稱: 論WTO法在歐洲聯盟法律體系中的地位與效力
指導教授: 李貴英
學位類別: 碩士
校院名稱: 東吳大學
系所名稱: 法律學系研究所
摘要
本篇論文的核心係在探討關稅暨貿易總協定以及世界貿易組織的相關協定在歐洲聯盟之法律體系中的地位與效力的議題。論文首先分析歐體法院對於一般國際條約在歐盟內部的地位與效力議題的立場，得知歐體法院認為歐盟對外簽署的國際條約之內容可成為歐盟法律體系的一部，而其條約之條款若符合「條約之本質與目的」以及「包含清楚、明確且未附條件的義務」兩項標準時，則該條款可以具有直接效力，亦即個人可以依據該條款而在歐體法院或會員國之內國法院中請求其權利。
不過歐體法院對於1947年的關稅暨貿易總協定以及現行的世界貿易組織的相關協定似乎採取迥異的否定立場。雖然歐體法院認為該等協定之內容可構成歐洲聯盟法律體系的一部，但就其條款之直接效力的認定上，便基於該等協定係依據互惠性的協商原則原而簽署，協定中的防衛機制與爭端解決程序允許過的彈性，而造成相關協定中的義務內涵不夠清楚且明確，是該等協定之條款具有直接效力的可能性故屢屢否定該等條款可以具有直接效力。不過歐體法院同時也指出，若共同體的立法明顯指涉該等協定的特定條款時，或共同體的行為係在履行共同體在該等協定中的特定義務時，則該等協定的相關條款便可具有直接效力。而本文最後同時也分析世界貿易組織的爭端解決報告在歐洲聯盟內部的地位與效力的相關議題，並與其他國際協定中的紛爭處理方式作比較，最後得知歐體法院就世界貿易組織之爭端解決報告的上述議題採取與世界貿易組織相關協定一樣的立場與看法。
歐體法院在世界貿易組織相關協定所採取之保守立場的動機，係為維護歐洲聯盟的機構在處理世界貿易組織之事務上的運作空間，而在案例分析中可見其所主張的某些論點明顯違反其過去所建立的案例法。
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has clearly and repeatedly denied direct effect to the norms of the 1947 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. In those cases the Court affirmed that GATT was an integral part of Community law and that the Community was bound by it. ECJ also affirmed, however, that GATT was incapable of having direct effect on individuals. For the ECJ, the unenforceability of GATT is a consequence of the "general scheme of GATT," which is based on "the principle of negotiations undertaken on the basis of ''reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements'' and is characterized by the great flexibility of its provisions, in particular those concerning the possibilities of derogation, the measures to be taken when confronted with exceptional difficulties and the settlement of conflicts between the contracting parties.
The ECJ has buttressed its position on those cases as to the impossibility of private parties invoking GATT at their behest. The ECJ, nevertheless, has admitted two exceptions to the rule: first, enforceability will be accepted in those cases in which the Community intends to implement a particular obligation provided by GATT law; second, direct effect will be honored if an express reference is made to a particular GATT provision by a Community act. These exceptions must be considered from an objective point of view, so as to restrain the discretionary powers of the Community''s legislative branch, which could not, in principle, implement a GATT/WTO obligation without permitting the Court of Justice to exercise its judicial review functions on the grounds that WTO law was not expressly cited among the bases of competence for the adoption of a particular decision.
After the WTO Agreements came into force, many scholars believe that the grounds for denying direct effect to GATT rules were no longer valid. After the major improvements of the Uruguay Round Agreements, the Court of Justice continues to adhere to the precedents. Although the Court is no longer in a position to doubt the general spirit, scheme and structure of GATT/WTO law, from a pragmatic/policy point of view, there are sound reasons to think that the Court of Justice has several good grounds upon which to continue to defend its theories on GATT''s direct effect.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究方法與研究範圍 1
第三節 文獻探討與預期結果 2
第二章 國際條約在歐洲聯盟的地位與效力 3
第一節 歐洲共同體對外權能的本質 3
第一項 專屬權能 4
第二項 共享權能 7
第二節 歐洲共同體依其專屬權能對外締結的條約 8
第一項 條約與共同體法的關係 8
第二項 歐體法院的專屬解釋管轄權 9
第三項 條約的直接效力 10
第一款 與為加入歐洲共同體之國家所簽署的協定 11
第一目 締約國已成為歐洲共同體會員國者 11
第二目 締約國尚未成為歐洲共同體會員國者 15
第二款 與非為加入歐洲共同體之國家所簽署者 17
第三節 歐洲共同體與會員國依其共享權能所對外締結的條約─混合
性條約(mixed-agreement) 21
第一項 混合性條約與共同體法的關係 21
第二項 歐體法院對混合性條約的解釋管轄權 22
第三項 混合性條約的直接效力 23
第四節 會員國與第三國締結之條約 24
第一項 共同體條約生效前所締結者 24
第二項 共同體條約生效後所締結者 25
第五節 小 結 25
第三章 GATT1947在歐洲聯盟的地位與效力 27
第一節 GATT1947在歐洲聯盟法律體系中的地位 27
第二節 GATT1947在歐洲聯盟內部之效力的案例分析─GATT1947的條款
原則上不具有直接效力 28
第一項 共同體立法被控違反GATT1947的案例分析 28
第二項 會員國內部法規被控違反GATT1947的案例分析 40
第三節 GATT1947於歐洲聯盟中例外具有直接效力的情形 44
第一項 Fediol原則 44
第二項 Nakajima原則 46
第四節 小 結 48
第四章 WTO各項協定在歐洲聯盟的地位與效力 53
第一節 WTO各項協定在歐洲聯盟內部的地位與性質 53
第一項 WTO各項協定在歐洲聯盟內部的地位 53
第二項 WTO各項協定的性質─論歐體法院Opinion 1/94 55
第一款 GATS協定與TRIPs協定的性質─混合性條約 56
第二款 共同體權能範圍的釐清 57
第三款 會員國與共同體的合作責任 60
第二節 多邊貿易協定(MTA)條款的直接效力─依據共同體專屬權能所締
結之協定的案例分析 61
第一項 1994年關稅暨貿易總協定、紡織品與成衣協定及輸入許可程序
協定等的案例分析 61
第二項 反傾銷協定的案例分析 65
第三項 防衛協定的案例分析 67
第四項 技術性貿易障礙協定的案例分析 68
第三節 GATS協定與TRIPs協定條款的直接效力─混合性條約的案例分析 71
第一項 GATS協定的案例分析 71
第二項 TRIPs協定的案例分析 77
第四節 小 結 79
第五章 WTO爭端解決報告在歐洲聯盟的地位與效力 87
第一節 WTO爭端解決報告對歐洲聯盟的拘束力 87
第一項 WTO爭端解決瞭解書生效前的GATT小組報告 87
第二項 WTO爭端解決報告對歐洲聯盟的拘束力 88
第二節 WTO爭端解決報告的直接效力 90
第一項 歐體法院否認WTO爭端解決報告具有直接效力的依據 91
第二項 WTO爭端解決報告具有直接效力的可能性 96
第三節 共同體所對外簽署條約下的機構作成之裁定與WTO爭端解決報告
的比較 97
第一項 依據國際條約建立的行政機構所作成的決定 98
第一款 在共同體內部的拘束力 98
第二款 在共同體內部的直接效力 100
第二項 依據國際條約建立的司法機構所作成的裁定 102
第四節 小 結 102
第六章 結 論 105
參考資料 109
一、中文部份 109
(一)、書籍： 109
(二)、碩士論文 109
(三)、期刊論文 110
二、英文部份 111
Ⅰ. Books 111
Ⅱ. Articles 113
Ⅲ. Judgment of European Court of Justice and Court of First
Instance 117
(一)、書籍：
王泰銓，《歐洲共同體法總論》，台北市：三民，1997。
丘宏達，《現代國際法》，台北市：三民，1995。
杜筑生，《歐洲經濟共同體之對外關係》，台北市：正中，1991。
陳麗娟，《歐洲共同體法導論》，台北市：五南，1996。
陳麗娟，《阿姆斯特丹條約解讀》，台北市：五南，1999。
章鴻康，《歐洲共同體法概論》，台北市：遠流，1991。
黃立、李貴英、林彩瑜，《WTO：國際貿易法論》，台北市：元照， 2000。
羅昌發，《國際貿易法：世界貿易組織下之法律新秩序》，台北市：元照，1999。
(二)、碩士論文
林志峰，《歐洲共同體之國際法人格》，私立淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文，1995。
邱金松，《歐洲聯盟對外貿易決策機制之研究》，私立淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文，2002。
邱育佩，《世界貿易組織爭端解決機制之研究》，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2000。
周旭華，《歐洲共同體對外貿易關係的法律問題-以WTO協定相關問題為中心》，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2000。
胡紹琳，《以歐體香蕉爭端案為例探討WTO之爭端解決機制》，私立東吳大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2001。
徐揮彥，《論歐洲共同體法律秩序中之法治要素》，私立東吳
大學律學研究所碩士論文，2000。
楊華鴻，《歐洲共同體司法制度之研究-以歐洲法院之發展為中心》，私立淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文，2002。
(三)、期刊論文
王玉葉，〈歐洲聯盟之輔助原則〉，《歐美研究》，第30卷第2期，民國89年6月。
朱景鵬，〈歐洲聯盟與中共雙邊互動經驗之探討-兼論歐盟之對外關係〉，《遠景季刊》，第3期第2卷，民國91年4月。
李貴英，〈歐元區對外代表之法律問題〉，《問題與研究》，第38卷第4期，民國88年12月。
李貴英，〈阿姆斯特丹條約與歐洲聯盟會員國政府間合作關係〉，《美歐季刊》，第14卷第3期，民國89年8月。
周德旺，〈馬斯垂克條約基本原則之研究〉，《問題與研究》，第34卷第8 期，民國84年8月。
周德旺，〈歐洲共同體法直接效力研究〉，《美歐月刊》，第9卷第10期，民國83年10月。
周德旺，〈歐洲共同體行政執行程序與司法救濟制度之研究〉，《美歐月刊》，第11卷第2期，民國85年2月。
周旭華，〈歐洲共同體對外貿易關係的權力劃分問題〉，《歐美季刊》，第14卷第4期，民89年12月。
洪德欽，〈WTO爭端解決體系之研究〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第28卷第4期，民國88年7月。
洪德欽，〈區域經濟整合與GATT/WTO〉，《臺大法學論叢》，第29卷4期，民國89年7月。
莊雅馨，〈世界貿易組織協定在我國法律上之地位〉，《貿易調查專刊》，第3期，民國87年5月。
陳正祺，〈世界貿易組織與其他國際經貿組織之合作與互動〉，《貿易調查專刊》，第3期，民國87年5月。
黃立、李貴英，〈歐洲法院對現行反傾銷法相關判決之研究〉，《貿易調查專刊》，第6期，民國90年9月。
黃立，〈GATT/WTO爭端解決機制總論〉，《月旦法學》，第79期，民國90年12月。
鄧衍森，〈歐洲共同體對外權能〉，《貿易調查專刊》，第2期， 民國86年5月。
鄧衍森，〈歐盟與WTO〉，歐洲與美國國際爭端研討會，民國91年8月。
蕭振寰，〈由歐盟香蕉案認識世界貿易組織的爭端解決制度〉，《進口救濟制度》，第18卷，民國90年6月。
Ⅰ. Books
Bronckers, M. & Quick, R., New Directions in International Economic Law─Essays in Honour of John H. Jackson, (2000), Kluwer.
Búrca, G. & Scott, J., The EU and the WTO : legal and constitutional Issues, (2001), Hart.
Craig, P. & Búrca, G., EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, (3rd 2002), Oxford University Press.
Dehousse, R., The European Court of Justice, (1998), Macmillan.
Dillon, S., International Trade and Economic Law and the European Union, (2002), Hart Publishing.
Emmert, F., European Union Law─Case, (2000), Kluwer.
Foster, N.G., EC law: law questions & answers, (3rd 2001), Blackstone.
Gale, S., EC law, (3rd 2001), Butterworths.
Hartley, T.C., The Foundations of European Community Law, (4th1998), Oxford University Press.
Heukels, T. & Blokker, N. & Brus, M., The European Union after Amsterdam, (1998), Kluwer.
Hilf, M. & Jacobs, F.G. & Petersmann, E.-U., The European Community and GATT, (1986), Kluwer.
Jackson, J.H., The World Trading System─Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, (2nd1998), The MIT Press .
Jackson, J.H., The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO─Insights on treaty law and economic relations, (2000), Cambridge University Press.
Jennings, R. & Watts, A., Oppenheim’s International Law, (9th1992), Longman.
Kuilwijk, K.J., The European Court of Justice and the GATT Delimma：Public Interest versus Individuals Rights?, (1996), Nexed Edition Academic Publishers.
Kaniel, M., The Exclusive Treaty-Making Power On The European Community: up to the Period Of The Single European Act, (1996), Kluwer.
Koskenniemi, M., International Law Aspect of the European Union, (1998), Kluwer.
Lewis, C., Remedies and the Enforcement of European Community Law, (1996), Sweet & Maxwell.
Macleod, I. & Hendry, I.D. & Hyett, S., The External Relations of the European Communities, (1996), Clarendon.
Shaw, J., Law of the European Law, (2nd1996), Macmillan.
Shaw, M.N., International Law, (3rd1991), Cambridge University Press.
Tridimas, T., The General Principles of EC Law, (1999), Oxford University Press.
Weatherill, S. & Beaumont, P., EU Law, (3rd1999), Penguin.
Woolf, H. & Jowell, J. & Le Sueur, A.P., Pinciples of Judicia Review, (1999), Sweet & Maxwell.
Ⅱ. Articles
Bebr, G. (1983), ‘Agreements Concluded by the Community and Their Possible Direct Effect: From International Fruit Company To Kupferberg,’ 20 Common Market Law Review 35.
Bhala, R. (2000), ‘The Bananas War’ 31 McGeorge Law Review 839.
Bishop, A.S. (2002), ‘The Second Legal Revolution In International Trade Law: Ecuador Goes Ape In Banana Trade War With European Union,’ 12 International Legal Perspective 1.
Bourgeois, J.H.J.(1984), ‘Effects of International Agreements in European Community Law:Are the Dice Cast?’ 82 Michigan Law Review 1250.
Broek, N. (2001), ‘Legal Persuasion, Political Realism, and Legitimacy: The European Court’s Recent Treatment of the Effect of WTO Agreements in the EC Legal Order,’ Journal of International Economic Law 411.
Bronckers, M. (1990), ‘Non-Judicial and Judicial Remedies in International Trade Disputes: Some Reflections at the Close of the Uruguay Round,’ 24 Journal of World Trade 121.
Cass, D.Z. (1992), ‘The Word That Saves Maastricht ? The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Division of Powers within the European Community,’ 29 Common Market Law Review 1107.
Cheyne, I. (1994), ‘International Agreements and the European Community Legal System,’ 18 European Law Review 582.
Cone, S.M. (2001), ‘The Asbestos Case and Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: The Uneasy Relationship Between Panels and the Appellate Body,’ 23 Michigan Journal of International Law 103.
Cottier, T. (1998), ‘Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union,’ 35 Common Market Law Review 325.
Desmedt, A. (2000), ‘ECJ Restricts Effect of WTO Agreements in the EC Legal Order,’ Journal of International Economic Law 191.
Davey, W.J. (2001), ’International Economic Conflict and Resolution: The World Trade Organization''s Dispute Settlement System,’ 42 South Texas Law Review 1199.
Davey, W.J. (2001), ‘Introduction: European Union and International Trade,’ 7 Columbia Journal of European Law 303.
Eeckhout, P. (1997), ‘The Domestic Legal Status of the WTO Agreement: Interconnecting Legal System,’ 34 Common Market Law Review 11.
Eeckhout, P. (2002), ‘Judicial Enforcement of WTO Law in the European Union─Some Further Reflections,’ Journal of International Economic Law 91.
Everling, U. (1996), ‘Will Europe Slip on Bananas? The Banana Judgment of the Court of Justice and National Courts,’ 33 Common Market Law Review 401.
Feeney, S.P. (2002), ‘The Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO Agreement: An Inadequate Mechanism for the Resolution of International Trade Disputes,’ 2 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 99.
Fernando C.T. (1995), ‘The Status of GATT in EC Law, Revisited The Consequences of the Judgment on the Banana Import Regime for the Enforcement of the Uruguay Round Agreements,’ 29 Journal of World Trade 53.
Griller, S. (2000), ‘Judicial Enforceability of WTO Law in the European Union Annotation to Case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council,’ Journal of International Economic Law 441.
Hartley, T.C. (1983), ‘International Agreements and the Community Legal System: Some Recent Developments,’ 8 European Law Review 383.
Jackson, J.H. & Grane, P. (2001), ‘The Saga Continues: An Update on the Banana Dispute and its Procedural Offspring,’ Journal of International Economic Law 581.
Joseph, A.L. (2000), ‘The Banana Split: Has The Stalemate Been Broken in The WTO Banana Dispute? The Global Trade Community’s "A-PEEL" For Justice,’ 24 Fordham International Law Journal 744.
Kapteyn, P.J.G. (1974), ‘The Domestic Law Effect of Rules of International Law Within the European Community System of Law and Question of the Self-executing Character of GATT Rules,’ 8 The International Lawyer 75.
Kuijper, P.J. (1995), ‘The New WTO Dispute Settlement System,’ 29 Journal of World Trade 49.
Lee, Ph. & Kennedy, B. (1996), ‘The Potential Direct Effect of GATT1994 in European Community Law,’ 30 Journal of World Trade 67.
Leal-Arcas, R. (2001), ‘Unitary Character of EC External Trade Relations,’ 7 Columbia Journal of European Law 355.
Mavroidis, P.C. (2000), ‘Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place,’ 11 European Journal of International Law 763.
Mora, M.M. (1996), ‘A Rediscovered Basis for the Court of Justice of the European Community to Refuse Direct Effect to the Uruguay Round Agreement ?’ 30 Journal of World Trade 43.
Mulvena, M.M. (2001), ‘Has the WTO Gone Bananas? How the Banana Dispute has Tested the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism,’ 7 New England International and Comparative Law Annual 177.
Palmeter, D. & Mavroidis, P.C. (2001), ‘A New Era of Legalism for Dispute Settlement Under the WTO: Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure,’ 16 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 447.
Palmer, E.N. (2002), ‘The World Trade Organization Slips Up: A Critique of the World Trade Organization''s Dispute Settlement Understanding Through the European Union Banana Dispute,’ 69 Tennessee Law Review Association 443 .
Pescatore, P.(1979), ‘External Relations in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Community,’ 16 Common Market Law Review 615.
Pescatore, P. (1983), ‘The Doctrine of “Direct Effect”：An Infant Disease of Community Law,’ 8 European Law Review 155.
Petersmann, E.-U. (1983), ‘Application of GATT by the Court of Justice of the European Community,’ 20 Common Market Law Review 397.
Petersmann, E.-U. (1994), ‘The Dispute Settlement System of the World Trade Organization and the Evolution of the GATT Dispute Settlement System Since 1948,’ 31 Common Market Law Review 1157.
Petersmann, E.-U. (1995), ‘Proposals for a New Constitution for the European Union: Building-Blocks for a Constitutional Theory and Constitutional Law of the EU,’ 32 Common Market Law Review 1123.
Sabry, F. (2001), ‘The Development And Effectiveness Of The WTO''s Dispute Settlement Body,’ 10 Michigan State University-DCL Journal of International Law 521.
Salas, M. & Jackson, J.H. (2000), ‘Procedural Overview of the WTO EC─Banana Dispute,’ 145 Journal of International Economic Law.
Schmid, C.U. (2001), ‘All Bark and No Bite: Notes on the Federal Constitutional Court''s “Banana Decision”,’ 7 European Journal of International Law 95.
Smith, F. (2000), ‘Renegotiating Lomé: the impact of the World Trade Organisation on the European Community''s development policy after the Banana conflict,’ 25 European Law Review 247.
Spiegel, J.L. (2000), ‘Will the Great Banana War Ever End: Will the Tariff Only System Be the Solution?’ 24 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 219.
Trachtman, J.P. (1999), ‘Banana, Direct Effect and Compliance,’ 10 European Journal of International Law 655.
Weisberger, M. (2002), ‘The Application of PORTUGAL V. COUNCIL: The Banana Cases,’ 12 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 153.
Zonnekeyn, G.A. (1999), ‘The Legal Status of WTO Panel Reports in the EC Legal Order─Some Reflections on the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in the Atlanta Case,’ Journal of International Economic Law 713.
Zonnekeyn, G.A. (2000), ‘The Status of WTO law in the Community legal order: some comments in the light of the Portuguese Textiles case,’ 25 European Law Review 293.
Zonnekeyn, G.A. (2000), ‘The Status of Adopted Panel and Appellate Body Reports in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of First Instance─The Banana Experience,’ Journal of World Trade 93.
Zonnekeyn, G.A. (2001), ‘The Latest on Indirect Effect of WTO Law in the EC Legal Order the Nakajima Case Law Misjudged?’ Journal of International Economic Law 597.
Ⅲ. Judgment of European Court of Justice and Court of First
Instance
1. ECJ Cases
C-8/55, Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v. High Authority, [1956] ECR 245...……………………….……………………………………….4
C-22/70, Commission v. Council (European Agreement on Road Transport (ERTA), [1971] ECR 263..……..……..……………....5, 57
C-41-44/71, International Fruit Company and Others v. Commission, [1971] ECR 411...……………………………….……..……....……..29
C-51-54/71, International Fruit Company and Others v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1971), E.C.R. 1107………………………..29
C-21-24/72, International Fruit Company v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1972] ECR 1219.……………............19, 28, 30, 32, 33, 37, 47
C-9/73, Carl Schlüter v. Hauptzollamt Lörrach, [1973] ECR1135..... 37
C-130/73, Magdalena Vandeweghe and others v. Berufsgenossenschaft für die chemische Industrie, [1973] ECR1333……..……..…….….24
C-181/73, R. & V. Haegeman v. Belgian State, [1974] ECR 449……………...……………………………………………….……9, 54
C-87/75, Bresciani v. Amministrazione delle Finance delle Stato, [1976] ECR 129………….…………..…….…………….………17, 18, 43, 105
C-112/80, Firma Anton Dürbeck v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt Am Main-Flughafen, [1981] ECR 1095…....……………….……..87, 88
C-270/80, Polydor Ltd. v. Harlequin Records Shop Ltd., [1982] ECR 329…………………..…………………………………………………11
C-17/81, Pabst & Richarz v. Hauptzollant Oldenberg, [1982] ECR 1331…………...………………………………………………....14, 105
C-26/81, Oleifici Mediterranei v. EEC, [1982] ECR 3057…..………………………………………………….………...….73
C-104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. C.A. Kupferberg & Cie. Kg.a.A, [1982] ECR 3641…..………….…………….…………….12, 13, 14, 43, 47, 52, 63, 94, 96, 100
C-266/81, SIOT v. Ministero delle Finanze, [1983] ECR731...……….….…………………………………………37, 40, 47
C-267-269/81, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Società Petrolifera Italiana SpA (SPI) and SpA Michelin Italiana (SAMI), [1983] ECR 801...…………………..…………………………...40, 41
C-184/85, Commission v. Italy, [1987] ECR 2013..……………….…42
C-12/86, Meryem Demirel v. Stadt Schwäbisch Gmund, [1987] ECR 3719……………………...………………………10, 21, 22, 23, 54, 88
C-70/87, Fédération de l’industrie de l’huilerie de la CEE (Fediol) v. Commission, [1989] ECR 1781...………………...………..44, 45, 64
C-30/88, Greece v. Commission of the European Communities, [1989] ECR 3711……………….……………………………..10, 98, 99, 100
C-175/88, Matsushita, [1992] ECR I-1409...……….….………………47
C-188/88, NMB (Deutschland) GMbH et altri v. Commission, [1992] ECR I-1689...………………………………………………………….47
C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd. v. Council, [1991] ECR I-2069………….…………………………………………….46, 47, 64
C-192/89, S.Z. Sevince v. Staatssecretaris van Justice, [1990] ECR I-3461.............................................................................99, 100
C-18/90, Office nationale de l’emploi v. Kziber, [1991] ECR I-199.................................................................................18, 19
C-150/90, Goldstar Co. Ltd. v. Council, [1992] ECR I-677..….…….47
C-181 and C-248/91, Parliament v. Council and Commission, [1993] ECR I-3685………………………………..…………………………..23
C-267-269/91, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. SPI and SAMI, [1983] ECR 801……………………….……………………..37
C-432/92, The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others, [1994] ECR I-3087……………………………………………………….…….15, 16
C-280/93, Federal Republic of Germany v. Council, [1994] ECR I-4973………………………………….33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 48, 96, 106
C-469/93, Amministrazione delle Finance delle Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA, [1995] ECR I-4533…...…………………………41, 42, 43, 105
C-285/94, Italy v. Commission, [1997] ECR I-3519...………………..73
C-53/96, Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice BV, [1998] ECR I-3603...……………………..………...……………55, 76, 77, 78
C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, [1999] ECR I-8395...…...…….....61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 74, 90, 92, 106
C-162/96, A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, [1998] ECR I-3655………….……………..……………………….…………..19, 20
C-262/96, Sema Sürül v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, [1999] ECR I-2685.............................................................................100, 101
C-104/97, Atlanta AG and others v. Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union, [1999] ECR I-6983………..…..…………………………………….…87, 91, 92, 96
C-301/97, Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of the European Union, [2001] ECR I-8853...…………..……....……………….67, 68
C-37/98, The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Abdulnasir Savas, [2000] ECR I-2927......................16, 105
C-300/98 and C-392/98, Parfums Christian Dior SA v. Tuk Consultancy BV and Assco Gerüste GmbH v. Layher GmbH & Co. KG, [2000] ECR I-11307.......................................................................78, 79
Case C-377/98, Kingdom of the Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, [2001] ECR I-7079…………..…...…………………………………………….68, 69
C-27/00 and C-122/00, The Queen v. Omega Air Ltd, [2002] ECR I-2569…………………..………………………………………...69, 70
Opinion 1/76 on drafting Agreement establishing a the Laying-up fund for Inland Waterway Vessels, [1977] ECR 741…..…….………6, 58
Opinion 1/91, Draft agreement relating to the creation of the Economic Area, [1991] ECR I-6079……………………………..……….88, 102
Opinion 1/94, [1994] ECR I-5276……………...8, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
2. CFI Cases
T-521/93, Atlanta and Others v. European Community, [1996] ECR II-1707………………..…………………………………………….…91
T-113/96, Dubois et Fils v. Council and Commission, [1998] ECR II-125…………………..………………………………………….…..73
T-254/97, Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chemnitz v. Commission of the European Communities, [1999] ECR II-2743………..92, 93, 96
T-256/97, Bureau Européen des Unions des Consommateurs (BEUC) v. Commission of the European Communities, [2000] ECR II-0101………………………………………………..………65, 66, 74
T-18/99, Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities, [2001] ECR II-0913….………….71, 72, 73, 74, 75
T-30/99, Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities, [2001] ECR II-943………………..……..71
T-52/99, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities, [2001] ECR II-981………..……..…...……………..71
T-174/00, Biret International SA v. Council of the European Union, [2002] ECR II-0017…………..……………………………..93, 94, 95
