Case T-89/00

Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH

v

Council of the European Union

‛Anti-dumping — Termination of proceedings — Principle of equal treatment — Initial investigation in one procedure coinciding with a review in another procedure — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Regulation terminating anti-dumping procedures — Retroactivity’

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 12 September 2002   II-3654

Summary of the Judgment

1. Actions for annulment — judgment granting annulment — Effects — Obligation to adopt implementing measures — Scope — Account to be taken of both the grounds and operative part of the judgment

   (Art. 233 EC)

2. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Importer challenging the limitation of the retroactivity of a regulation terminating an anti-dumping procedure and abolishing the anti-dumping duty

   (Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Principle of equal treatment of imports from different countries — Scope

   (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts S, 9(5) and 11(2))

1.  When the Community judicature annuls an act of an institution, that institution is required, under Article 233 EC, to take the measures necessary to comply with that judgment. In order to comply with the judgment and to implement it fully, the institution is required to observe not only the operative part of the judgment but also the grounds which led to that judgment and constitute its essential basis, inasmuch as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure.

   (see para. 32)

2.  An undertaking which has imported into the Community goods subject to anti -dumping duty has an interest in the annulment of a Council regulation terminating the anti-dumping procedure and abolishing that duty since the contested regulation contains an implied refusal of its request that the regulation be afforded more extensive retroactive effect than that adopted. The fact that the contested regulation is generally favourable to the applicant in no way diminishes its interest in the annulment of the part of the regulation unfavourable to it, namely the provision relating to the entry into force of the abolition of the duties as they apply to it.

   (see paras 34-35)

3.  Even if the investigations were carried out simultaneously on similar products originating in two groups of non-member countries for the same period of investigation and similar conclusions were reached as to dumping, injury and the Community interest, the fact that anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports from one of those groups while none were imposed on those from the other group cannot be regarded as constituting an infringement of the principle of equal treatment expressly referred to in Article 9(5) of the basic anti-dumping regulation No 384/96, where that difference arose because one of those cases involved a definitive duty which was the subject of a review procedure and which, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, had to continue to be collected, whereas the other case concerned a provisional duty which, under Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, could be definitively collected only in the event that a definitive duty was imposed, which did not occur as a result of the failure by the Council to vote in favour of such a measure within the prescribed period. Such a difference in treatment has a legislative basis in the basic regulation and the Council is not obliged to refrain from applying Article 11(2) of the basic regulation on the basis of Article 9(5) of that regulation.

   (see paras 56-58)