Brussels, 07/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - With its ruling on 6 June (case T-279/11), the EU General Court rejected the action brought by the British importer of cane sugar, Tate & Lyle (T&L), aimed at annulment of the European Commission's decision of March 2011 to release sugar and isoglucose (both out of quota and imports) in order to compensate a certain lack of sugar and rebalance a market disturbed by very high prices.
During the 2010-2011 harvesting year, the Commission observed a severe market imbalance on the sugar market notably due to high international prices, which had meant that imports of cane sugar were consequently well below expectations. In order to ensure the fluidity of the sugar market, the Commission took special measures aimed at releasing onto the EU market a sufficient quantity of out-of-quota and import sugar at reduced levies. Tate & Lyle challenged the regulations relating to such measures alleging, among other things, that the Commission should have focused first of all on a release of import sugar at reduced duty. It also called for compensation for injury caused due to the measures taken. The Commission, for its part, called on the General Court to consider the action for annulment inadmissible as well as the request for compensation for injury introduced by T&L, arguing that: - the regulations challenged - mainly the sugar import tariff quota and the coefficients for attribution of import certificates - did not target T&L especially but applied to all importers; - and new national implementation measures were necessary for application of those regulations. It also said that its measures to respond to the excessive prices on the market did not restrict the offer as, on one hand, it proposed placing additional quantities of sugar on the market out of quota and, furthermore, the increase in low rate imports would have provided new possibilities to producers, processors and refineries.
The General Court agreed with this argument, deeming as inadmissible the request for cancellation of the regulations challenged by T&L. On the other hand, it rejects the exception of inadmissibility presented by the Commission concerning the request for compensation of injury introduced by T&L. Consequently, the latter could obtain compensation if it can demonstrate, through a separate legal action, that the Commission had extra-contractual liability for the injury suffered due to loss of activity. That judgment is more than likely to have an influence on the outcome of other cancellation proceedings introduced by T&L for similar measures for the year from 2011to 2012. (FG/transl.jl)