Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: CCJ

  • Belize v Trinidad & Tobago: Caribbean Court of Justice dismisses claim for lack of evidence

    Belize v Trinidad & Tobago: Caribbean Court of Justice dismisses claim for lack of evidence

    Alicia Nicholls

    In its ruling delivered on February 1, 2022, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed the original jurisdiction claim filed by Belize against Trinidad & Trinidad over the latter’s alleged failure to apply the Common External Tariff (CET) on extra-regional imported brown sugar.

    In its claim filed on September 30, 2020, Belize contended that Trinidad & Tobago had over the period November 2018-July 2020 failed to apply the CET rate of 40% on extra-regional imported brown sugar from Honduras and Guatemala. This, Belize argued, had adversely impacted prices and sales made by Belize Sugar Industries Ltd, a State-owned entity which exports sugar to Trinidad & Tobago. In light of this alleged breach by Trinidad & Tobago of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, Belize sought declarations and damages.  Inter alia, Trinidad & Tobago argued in its defense that it had not allowed for the importation of brown sugar from Guatemala and Honduras without applying the CET of 40% on that item.

    In dismissing Belize’s claim, the CCJ cited “severe shortcomings” in the evidence offered by Belize, in respect of the alleged failure of Trinidad and Tobago to apply the CET, and that these shortcomings “were not cured by reference to circumstantial evidence”.

    In its nearly fifty page judgment, the CCJ also took time to reaffirm and reiterate the importance of the obligation on Member States to impose and maintain the CET on the importation of extra-regional goods. Simply put, a CET refers to the uniform tariff rates applied by members of a customs union against imports from third countries, that is, non-parties to the customs union. Such a measure protects the exports of the members of the customs union within the union and aim to make them more competitive vis-à-vis products outside the customs union. Article 82 of the RTC requires member states to establish and maintain the CET, while Article 83 outlines the only ways in which the CET on an item may be altered or suspended.

    Citing its previous case law on the matter, the CCJ emphasized that the CET was a “fundamental pillar” in the establishment of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) and its importance in encouraging and promoting the production of goods within the community.

    With regard to the specific case at hand, the CCJ noted at paragraph 122 of the judgment as follows:

    “In the present circumstances, this Court re-emphasises the importance of maintaining the CET especially in respect of a product such as brown sugar which is of demonstrable importance to Member States such as Belize which manufactures that product. No one disputes that Belize has made very significant investment in its agricultural sector in general and in sugar cultivation and production specifically. The CET does not guarantee producers of sugar in Belize an assured market, but those producers are entitled to the protection of the market that the tariff is intended to provide.”

    Additionally, the CCJ went on to urge the Community “to superintend the conclusion of the Monitoring Mechanism for Sugar as quickly as possible to ensure that the benefits intended to ensure to the regional sugar producers are not frustrated and impaired”.

    The CCJ in its original jurisdiction has compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the RTC between Member States parties and between the Member States parties and the Community.

    The full judgment may be read here.

  • Freedom of Movement of Skilled Nationals a 'fundamental objective' of CARICOM, CCJ opines

    Freedom of Movement of Skilled Nationals a 'fundamental objective' of CARICOM, CCJ opines

    Alicia Nicholls

    March 18, 2020 was a historic day for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) when it delivered its first Advisory Opinion since its establishment.

    Inter alia, the CCJ is empowered with exclusive jurisdiction under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas to deliver advisory opinions concerning the interpretation and application of the RTC.

    For a background to the opinion, please see a previous article I co-authored with Dr. Jan Yves Remy here. In brief, the background surrounded a request by two Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Member States (Antigua & Barbuda and St. Kitts & Nevis) to opt-out of a decision of the Conference of Heads of Government to expand the categories of skilled nationals entitled to move and work freely across the Community to include security guards and agricultural workers. The opt-outs were subsequently granted by the Conference to these two Member States for a period of 5-years.

    The Court was asked by the Community to render an Advisory Opinion on whether (1) a Member State could lawfully opt out of the decision of the Conference expanding the categories of persons entitled to move and work freely in the Community; and (2) whether the principle of non-reciprocity would enable nationals of the opting out Member States to still derive the benefits accruing under the enlargement decision.

    In its Advisory Opinion, the Court has opined that freedom of movement of skilled nationals is a ‘fundamental objective’ of the Community, but that the 5-year opt-out granted by the Conference of Heads of Government to the two Member States from the enlargement decision is not prejudicial to this fundamental objective.

    It also opined that non-reciprocity applied so other Member States must still allow Antiguan/Barbudan and Kittian/Nevisian security guards and agricultural workers access to their labour markets.

    Read the full Advisory Opinion here and the summary here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant. You can also read more of her commentaries at www.caribbeantradelaw.com and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

    DISCLAIMER: All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may be affiliated from time to time.

  • The significance of the Caribbean Court of Justice’s pending Advisory Opinion

    The significance of the Caribbean Court of Justice’s pending Advisory Opinion

    Dr Jan Yves Remy and Alicia Nicholls

    The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will mark another milestone in its decade and a half history when it shortly delivers its first advisory opinion pursuant to Article 212 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC).

    Late last month, the Court held a publicly broadcast two-day hearing where it heard oral submissions from counsel of the CARICOM Secretariat, member states and Caribbean law faculties from which it had received written submissions. The subject matter of the advisory opinion concerns the circumstances under which it is lawful for CARICOM Member States to “opt-out” of CARICOM Heads of Government decisions that involve fundamental objectives of the Community.

    In this SRC Trading Thoughts, we discuss the significance of the pending advisory opinion and its possible impact on the emerging body of CARICOM jurisprudence.

    Read more here

  • CCJ First Advisory Opinion Hearing

    CCJ First Advisory Opinion Hearing

    Alicia Nicholls

    History is being made at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) which is currently hearing oral submissions in the first ever Advisory Opinion filed in the Court pursuant to Article 212 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC).

    Article 212 of the RTC empowers the CCJ with exclusive jurisdiction to deliver advisory opinions concerning the interpretation and application of the RTC. Advisory opinions can be delivered only at the request of the Member States parties to a dispute or the Community.

    The present request, which was filed by the CARICOM Secretariat, concerns two substantive issues:

    (1) whether a Member State can, pursuant to Article 27(4) of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, lawfully opt-out of a decision of the Conference of the Heads of Government taken under Article 46(4) concerning the expansion of classes of persons entitled to work and move freely in the Community.

    (2) whether the nationals of those Member States which opt-out of a decision under Article 27(4), can nevertheless derive the benefits of the decision.

    Day 1

    On Day 1, the Court heard, inter alia, from CARICOM’s General Counsel, Dr. Corlita Babb-Schaefer, as well as counsel from Barbados, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, Grenada. Also appearing amicus was a team from the Faculty of Law, The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill campus represented by Dean Dr. David Berry and law lecturers, Mrs. Nicole Foster and Mr. Westmin James. The live recording from Day 1 may be watched here.

    Day 2

    On Day 2 of the hearing the Court heard closing submissions. In closing, the Court promised to deliver its Advisory Opinion in a “reasonable time”. Day 2 of the hearing may be watched here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B., is an international trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

    DISCLAIMER: All views expressed herein are her personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution or entity with which she may be affiliated from time to time.