Bite the bullet: Trade retaliation, EU jurisprudence and the law and economics of 'taking one for the team'

Bite the bullet: Trade retaliation, EU jurisprudence and the law and economics of 'taking one for the team'

This paper discusses the Fedon case-law of the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice), which involved a claim for compensation by Fedon (an Italian producer of eyeglass cases) from the EU for the imposition of World Trade Organization (WTO)-authorised retaliatory trade barriers by the USA foll...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European law journal : review of European law in context 2014-05, Vol.20 (3), p.317-331
Main Authors: Hoekman, Bernard M., Mavroidis, Petros C.
Format: Article
Language:eng
Subjects:
Commercial law
Compensation
Court of Justice of the European Communities
Courts
Dues and Fees
Europe
European Court of Justice
European Union
Exports
International Court
International jurisprudence
International law
International trade
Jurisprudence
Justice
Legal protection
Legal systems
Teams
Trade
U.S.A
United States of America
World Trade Organization
WTO
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper discusses the Fedon case-law of the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice), which involved a claim for compensation by Fedon (an Italian producer of eyeglass cases) from the EU for the imposition of World Trade Organization (WTO)-authorised retaliatory trade barriers by the USA following the failure by the EU to comply with an adverse ruling by the WTO regarding its import regime for bananas. As a result of the EU non-compliance, European banana distributors and some bananas producers benefited from WTO-illegal protection, at the expense of a set of EU exporters, including Fedon, that were hit by US countermeasures. Fedon contested the non-compliance by the EU before the Court of Justice and sought compensation. This paper assesses the ruling of the Court of Justice against Fedon and argues that the Court got it wrong, both in terms of legal principle and as a matter of legal technicalities.
ISSN:1468-0386
1351-5993
1468-0386