Yelyzaveta Bondar (BBA) ID 255404

In this essay I am going to examine the problem highlighted in this case and
find a principle that would be the most appropriate for its solution, in the end I
will express my own opinion concerning this situation.
Firstly, I will briefly describe an unpleasant incident that the company have
had the misfortune to face. A company from Germany named X was doing
business as importer of bananas from Brazil to Europe. They had valid import
permissions from the Brazil that was issued by EU administration. One day
community protection administrative measures that had to help to protect the
common EU market during crisis have been introduced, so the company X was
not able to import bananas to Europe. The problem was that they already sent
bananas to the Germany and when the product reached destination the company
found out about that measures, so they lost a lot of money.
So, what is the problem of this case? To my mind the main issue is that the
company’s expectations was not fulfilled. They were going to gain a profit from
import of bananas, but as a result lost even more money. The company had an
official permission and didn’t expected that it may end just like this. Even if
such measures of protection were accepted, the EU had to accept this product
(in my opinion) because the company sent it before the measures were
introduced.
In my opinion, in this case the principle of protection of legitimate
expectations should be applied. In this principle is written that:
«Actions of public bodies shall not interfere with vested rights and final legal
situations except where it is necessary in the public interest. Legitimate
expectations shall be duly taken into account where an administrative decision
is cancelled or revoked.»
As for me it is this principle that describes and reveals this situation in the
most precise way. But, in order to apply the principle, a number of conditions
must be met.
«Firstly, there must be an objective basis for legitimate expectations. In other
words, there must be an act or conduct on the part of the EU administration
capable of having given rise to such an expectation (eg. decision [administrative
act], legal act, soft law, or administrative assurances, promisses). It is that
situation which constitutes, in effect, the ‘basis’ for the expectation of the
person concerned. There must, moreover, be concrete, specific, precise, and
lawful assurances, promise.»
 I think this condition was completely fulfilled, because the company X had
valid import permissions from Brazil, which were issued by EU administration.
«Secondly, the person concerned must not be able to foresee the change of
conduct previously adopted by the EU administration and most of all it comes
about concept of “prudent economic operator test”. Case-law provides that if a
prudent trader could have foreseen that the adoption of a EU measure is likely
to affect his interests, he cannot plead the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations if the measure is adopted. The expectation to which the
measure or the conduct of the Community administration gives rise is therefore
‘legitimate’ and must accordingly be protected where the person concerned
might reasonably rely on the maintenance or the stability of the situation thus
created, in the same way as a ‘prudent and circumspect’ trader. The demands
placed on the trader to be prudent, discriminating, and well-informed have led
to the failure of many claims for legitimate expectations, more especially in the
areas where common policies operate, such as agriculture, fisheries, and
transport. The rules in these areas are frequently changed to cope with factors
that affect these markets. It is therefore especially difficult to sustain a claim for
legitimate expectations, since the Union courts will expect the prudent trader to
factor the possibility of such change into their own market calculations»
I believe, that the company was not able to predict the behavior of EU
Administration. Even if it knew about the possible crisis, it couldn’t know
which protective measures the EU Administration will accept and that this
measures will affect its business, as for me it is just impossible. So, this
condition was performed as well.
«Thirdly, the interests of those concerned must prevail over the public interest.
That condition is satisfied where the balancing of the interests in question shows
that, in the circumstances of the case, the EU interest does not prevail over that
of the person concerned in seeing the situation maintained that it might
legitimately have assumed to be a stable one.»
I am not sure, but I am more inclined to think that this condition was fulfilled
as well. So, I can say that this principle was violated because that three
conditions had been met cumulatively.
The more important question, who is responsible for the problem appearing in
this case? As for me it is obvious that EU Administration is responsible for it, it
is not the fault of the company, they had a specific permission and couldn’t
predict this outcome. So, the EU Administration should cover the damage
caused to this company.
To conclude, the problem of the case was, unfulfilled expectations of company
X from Germany. In this situation we have to apply the principle of protection
of legitimate expectations. This principle was violated because company got a
huge damage to its finances, while all three conditions of the principle were
fulfilled. And the culprit of all this was EU Administration.