These proceedings are historic as this is the first matter in which the
Caribbean Court of Justice ("the Court") has been called upon to exercise
its original jurisdiction. The Court accordingly has no precedents to follow
in its interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas
Establishing the Caribbean Community including the CARICOM Single Market and
Economy ("the Treaty") although over time, the decisions of the Court will
generate a body of precedent upon which it shall rely.
 In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the Court is mandated by Article
XVII of the Agreement Establishing the Court ("the Agreement") and Article
217 of the Treaty to apply such rules of international law as may be
applicable. This requires an expertise from counsel that is entirely
different from that to which one is accustomed in municipal law proceedings.
 The matter before the Court is an application by Trinidad Cement Limited
("TCL") and TCL Guyana Incorporated ("TGI") for special leave to appear as
parties before the Court in proceedings filed by those two entities against
the State of Guyana. For the reasons that follow the Court has decided that
the Court should adjourn the application for special leave to 10th November,
2008 and that an order should be made in the terms set out herein.
 TCL is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies
Ordinance Chapter 31 No. 1 of the Revised Laws of Trinidad and Tobago 1950
and continued under the Companies Act 1995 (now Chapter 81:01). It has its
registered office situated at Southern Main Road, Claxton Bay in the State
of Trinidad and Tobago. TCL is also registered as an external company under
the Companies Act No. 29 of 1991 of the Laws of Guyana with its registered
office in that State situated at Lot 2-9 Lombard Street, GNIC Compound,
Georgetown. The primary activity of TCL is the manufacture and sale of
cement qualifying for Community area treatment.
 TGI is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act
No. 29 of 1991 of the Laws of Guyana. Its registered office is situated at
the same location in Guyana as TCL's Guyana office. TGI's primary activity
is the packaging of bulk cement produced by TCL for sale on the Guyanese
market. TCL holds 80% of the issued share capital of TGI. The two companies
are referred to throughout this judgment collectively as "the Applicants".
 The State of Guyana is the Respondent in these proceedings. It was
represented before the Court by its Attorney General. The State of Trinidad
and Tobago was entitled to appear and was served with a copy of the
proceedings. It appeared by counsel but at the case management conference
preceding the hearing it had indicated that it merely wished to observe the
THE NATURE OF THE APPLICANTS' CLAIMS
 The Applicants seek special leave to appear as parties for the purpose
of filing an originating application claiming compensation from and/or
injunctive relief against the State of Guyana. Their proposed originating
application which was annexed to the application for special leave was filed
on 3rd April, 2008. At the hearing of the application for special leave the
Applicants sought amendments to the proposed originating application. The
State of Guyana did not object to the making of these amendments and the
Court accordingly granted the same.
 The Applicants allege a breach by Guyana of the provisions of Article 82
of the Treaty which oblige Guyana to establish and maintain a Common
External Tariff ("CET") on cement imported into that State from third States
i.e. countries outside the Caribbean Community. The CET has been
incorporated into the laws of Guyana by section 7 of the Customs Act,
Chapter 82:01 of the Laws of Guyana together with the First Schedule thereto.
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
 The Applicants allege that by Article 82 of the Treaty, Guyana, in
common with other Member States of the Caribbean Community, is required to
establish and maintain a CET in respect of all goods which do not qualify
for Community treatment in accordance with plans and schedules set out in
the relevant determinations of CARICOM's Council on Trade and Economic
 A product which qualifies for Community Treatment is one which has been
accorded Community origin status under Article 84 of the Treaty and which is
entitled to enter the customs jurisdictions of Member States without the
application of import duties or quantitative restrictions. The CET on cement
is imposed at the rate of 15% on imports of cement from third States as
reflected in the First Schedule to the Guyana Customs Act Chap. 82:01.
 The imposition of the CET on imports of cement into Guyana from third
States is of great commercial benefit to the Applicants because of the
protection thereby afforded to their products. When the CET is imposed by
Guyana both TCL and TGI enjoy a competitive advantage over imports of cement
from third States which do not qualify for Community treatment in accordance
with the Treaty.
 At the present time TCL and TGI are not enjoying such a competitive
advantage because of a decision of the Government of Guyana to suspend the
implementation of the CET on imports of cement into Guyana from third States.
The complaint of the Applicants is confined to the period of suspension from
January 2007 and continuing ("the relevant period") although the suspension
commenced some years before January 2007.
 Article 83 of the Treaty provides for COTED to authorise an alteration
or suspension of the CET by a Member State. The Government of Guyana has
neither sought nor been granted permission from COTED to alter or suspend
the implementation of the CET on cement. Nonetheless Guyana is allowing
cement from third States to enter Guyana without paying the CET at the rate
of 15% as mandated by the relevant provisions of the Treaty.
 The Applicants claim that they have fulfilled all the relevant criteria
for obtaining special leave as Guyana has breached a provision of the Treaty
intended to enure to their benefit directly and that they are prejudiced by
the breach. By virtue of the matters set out at  and  they claim to be
"nationals" of Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana respectively and they allege
that the Governments of both States have declined or refused to espouse
their claim. Accordingly, they seek special leave to appear as parties so
that they may seek redress from the Court.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
 The Attorney General of Guyana admitted that Guyana had suspended
implementation of the CET on cement and that COTED had not authorised any
suspension in respect of the relevant period. The suspension was justified
by the critical shortage of the commodity faced by that State in light of
its urgent developmental needs as a "disadvantaged country" pursuant to
Article 1 of the Treaty.
 The Applicants have been guilty of abusing their dominant position in
the market and the Court should consider the need to protect consumers
within the Community. Throughout the Community there were complaints about
the inability of TCL to supply the Caribbean market and in the period
between 2001 - 2007 CET waivers on cement were sought and obtained from
COTED by Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and the entire grouping of
States comprising the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS).
 The right to institute proceedings before the Court is a right
peculiarly vested in States Parties. Judicial review in municipal
proceedings would have been the more appropriate course for the Applicants
to take. The bringing of proceedings by one State against another under the
Treaty may have serious political implications for the continuation and
future of the Community because the Revised Treaty intends that Contracting
Parties operate as joint partners in the Caribbean Community and Caribbean
Single Market and Economy. Only in the event of a breach of Community
obligations of the greatest magnitude is it foreseeable that such
proceedings would be contemplated by one State against another.
 The Applicants must prove that they are "nationals" in terms of the
Treaty and the definition of a "national" in Article 1 of the Treaty is "a
national within the meaning of paragraph 5(a) of Article 32 of the Treaty.
That definition requires eight different conditions to be met and the
Applicants have not met them. Further, because of the seriousness of the
nature of the matter here, the standard of proof in an application for
special leave must be higher than in an ordinary civil action in a domestic
 The obligation to implement the CET pursuant to Article 82 of the
Treaty does not yield any benefit to the Applicants nor do they thereby
accrue any right. Since no right or benefit accrues to the Applicants they
are ineligible for special leave. In any event, no causal link has been
established between the Applicants' alleged loss and the failure on the part
of the State of Guyana to implement the CET.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
 Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago are parties both to the Treaty and to
the Agreement. Each of them has ratified and implemented these instruments
which confer on the Court compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
determine disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the
Treaty. By reason of Article 216(1) of the Treaty and Article XVI(1) of the
Agreement both States have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Further, Article 216(2) of the Treaty and Article XVI(2) of the Agreement
confer on the Court jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction in the event
of a dispute concerning its jurisdiction.
 In his submissions, Counsel for the Respondent challenged the
jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application for special leave by
suggesting that the Applicants were not nationals within the meaning of
Article 32(5) of the Treaty and, as to TGI, that this company was not
entitled to institute proceedings against the State of Guyana.
 In the opinion of the Court, it is clear that Applicants for special
leave are required to bring themselves within the meaning of "persons" set
out in the chapeau of Article 222 of the Treaty which provision reads as
"Locus Standi of Private Entities
Persons, natural or juridical, of a Contracting Party may, with the special
leave of the Court, be allowed to appear as parties in proceedings before
the Court where:
(a) the Court has determined in any particular case that this Treaty
intended that a right or benefit conferred by or under this Treaty on a
Contracting Party shall enure to the benefit of such persons directly; and
(b) the persons concerned have established that such persons have been
prejudiced in respect of the enjoyment of the right or benefit mentioned in
paragraph (a) of this Article; and
(c) the Contracting Party entitled to espouse the claim in proceedings
before the Court has:
(i) omitted or declined to espouse the claim, or
(ii) expressly agreed that the persons concerned may espouse the claim
instead of the Contracting Party so entitled; and
(d) the Court has found that the interest of justice requires that the
persons be allowed to espouse the claim."
 Specifically, it must be determined whether for the purposes of Article
222 it is sufficient for a company to be incorporated or registered under
the domestic legislation of a Contracting Party. The second question to be
determined is whether Article 222 of the Treaty accords to one who is held
to be a person, natural or juridical, of a Contracting Party the right to
sue that Contracting Party.
 The resolution of these issues goes to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Given their importance for the determination of the rights and obligations
of the Contracting Parties as well as private entities in their
jurisdictions, the Court would wish to afford the Community and the Member
States parties to the Treaty the opportunity to make written legal
submissions on these issues before making a determination on the application
for special leave.
 The Court therefore reserves its decision on the application for
special leave to appear by the Applicants and orders the Registrar, within
seven days, to issue a Notice directed to the Contracting Parties other than
Guyana and to the Community giving them the opportunity, if they so wish, to
make written submissions on the two issues referred to at .
 The Notice shall be served together with copies of the application of
the Applicants, their proposed Originating Application and the annexures to
it, the written submissions of the parties to the Court (but not the legal
authorities supporting those submissions) and this interim Order.
 The Community and the Contracting Parties other than Guyana shall be
notified in the Notice that written legal submissions, if any, must be filed
on or before 13th October, 2008. A Contracting Party or the Community may
together with its written submissions make a request for an opportunity to
make oral submissions as well on the same legal issues. The Court will hear
the oral submissions, if any, on 10th November, 2008.
 The Court
(a) Adjourns this application to 10th November, 2008 for further hearing, if
(b) Reserves the issue of costs.