In re Generalized Tariff Preferences: Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Communities
European Communities Court of Justice
[1987] E.C.R. 1493 (1987)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Article 133 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (EEC Treaty) enabled the Council of the European Communities (council) (defendant) to set rules supporting a common commercial policy for the European Economic Community (EEC). Article 133 of the EEC Treaty specified that the policy should include measures such as changes in tariff rates. Article 308 enabled the council to adopt additional rules as necessary, such as rules supporting economic development. The council claimed that both Article 133 and Article 308 authorized it to pass certain regulations allowing tariffs on imports to be suspended or adjusted to ease trade with developing nations (tariff regulations). The council called for unanimous voting on the tariff regulations, as required by Article 308. The Commission of the European Communities (commission) (plaintiff) challenged the validity of this procedure, asserting that Article 133 alone provided a basis for the tariff regulations. The commission asserted that Article 133 required the council to use a qualified-majority voting procedure rather than unanimous voting. In the court proceedings, the council asserted that Article 133 empowered only actions taken with the aim of changing the amount or pattern of trade and that actions taken with other goals in mind, such as economic development, were outside the scope of Article 133.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lenz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.