Luxembourg, 15/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - The European Court of First Instance has rejected the appeal by European companies that fell victim to US trade reprisals against European products in 1999. The Court ruled that there was nothing unusual or abnormal about the damage suffered by the companies because it did not outstrip the normal economic risks inherent in their business. Between 1999 and 2001, the United States imposed a special customs surcharge on various EU products, reacting against a 1998 EC regulation on the import of bananas which the US felt was incompatible with WTO rules. The following companies complained to the Court of First Instance in 2000 and 2001: Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio, FIAMM Technologies (industrial accumulators) and Fedon (spectacles cases) of Italy; Le Laboratoire du Bain (toiletries) and Group Fermaux (bed linen) of France; CD Cartondruk of Germany; and Beamglow of the UK (collapsible cardboard boxes).
The Court argues that the three companies did meet two of the three criteria for winning financial compensation from the EU without the EU institutions being found responsible. There was a direct connection between the damage suffered by the companies - proven by the fall in exports to the US - and the European Commission and Council's behaviour (they adopted the banana regulation), but the damages would have to be unusual and abnormal in order to award entitlement to financial compensation from the EU institutions. The Court argues this was not the case. The risks the companies might have been exposed to 'are not to be regarded as beyond the normal hazards of international trade as currently organised,' explains the Court. The companies argue that they were subject to discrimination compared with other companies that also suffered from the US surcharges since the plaintiffs alone bore the brunt of much of the total USD 191.4 mil stipulated by the United States' administration as being eligible for the trade surcharge when it introduced the measures.