欧共体法律体系研究(24)法学理论论文(1)

[47] 参见Case C-192/89 Sevince (19

90) ECR I-3461; Case C-188/91 Deutsche Shell (19

9

3) ECR I-363.[48] 参见Opinion 1/76 Laying-up Fund (19

7

7) ECR 741.[49] 进一步参考Schermers, A Typology of Mixed Agreements, in O’Keeffe and Schermers, n.1.[50] 参见Opinion 1/78 Natural Rubber (19

7

9) ECR 2971.[51] Case C-316/91 (19

9

4) ECR I-625.[52] 例如，Case 104/81 Hauptzollamt Mainz v. Kupferberg (19

8

2) ECR 3641.[53] 参见M. Hilf, “The application of GATT Within the Member States of the European Community, with Special Reference to the Federal Republic of Germany”, The European Community and GATT 153 (19

8

6), P161.[54] 参见曾令良， 《欧洲共同体与现代国际法》（1992），P260。[55] Ernist-Ulrich Petersmann, the EEC as a GATT MemberLegal Conflicts between GATT Law and EC Law, in Minhard Hilf, European Community and GATT, 1986, P24.[56] Joined Cases 51-54/71 International Fruit Company and Others v. Produktschap voor Groenten Fruit, (19

7

1) ECR 1107.[57] Council Decision 94/800 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the EC as regards matters within its competence of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations(1986-

9

4), (19

9

4) OJ L 336/1.[58] Opinion 1/94 WTO (19

9

4) ECR I-5267.[59] 参见D.Lasok and J.W.Bridge, Law and Institutions of the European Communities, (5th edtion, 19

9

1),P263.[60] 参见J.H.A.van Loon, “The Hague Conventions on Private International Law”, in F.G.Jacobs and S.Roberts, The Effect of Treaties in Domestic Law(19

8

7), P229.[61] 参见Case 181/73 R. & V. Haegeman v. Belgium State, (19

7

4), ECR 449.[62] 参见Case 21-24/72 Int. Fruit Company (19

7

2) ECR 1219; Jointed Cases 290&291/81, ECR (19

8

3),847.[63] 参见Kees Jan Kuilwijk, “The European Court of Justice and the GATT Dilemma”, P105.[64] Case 70/87 Fediol III (19

8

9) ECR 1825. 1984年欧共体理事会通过了对抗美国1974年贸易法301条款的2681/84号条例（又称“新商业政策工具”），根据该条例，在采取涉及关贸总协定缔约方的任何单边贸易措施之前，欧共体必须援用关贸总协定争端解决机制。[65] 中国的一些学者也认为，在这个案件中，法院判决个人可以依据GATT条款对欧洲委员会起诉。

笔者这是一种错误的理解。见曾令良、陈卫东，“从欧共体看21实际区域一体化对多边贸易体制的影响”。

[66] Case C-69/89 Nakajima(19

9

1) ECR I-2069.[67] Case C-280/93 Germany v. Council ( Banana Market Organization) (19

9

4) ECR I-4973.[68] 参见Kees Jan Kuilwijk, The European Court of Justice and the GATT Dilemma, P160.[69] COM

(9

4) 414 final. 关于这个问题，参见C.W.A. Timmermans, “The Implemantion of the Uruguay Round by the EC”, in: J.H.J. Bourgeois, F. Berrod and E.Gippini Fournier, The Urguay Round Results: A European Lawyer’s Perspective 501 (19

9

5), P506.21[70] 参见曾令良、陈卫东，“从欧共体看21世纪区域一体化对多边贸易体制的影响”。[71] 参见M. Maresceau, “The GATT in the Case-Law of the European Court of Justice”, in: M. Hilf, F. G. Jacobs and E. U. Petersmann, The European Community and GATT 107(19

8

6).[72] 这些国家的名单可以在第3284/94号条例附件

3、4和5（OJ 1994L 348/1）以及被修正的第998/97号条例（O J 1997 L 144/13）中查到。