Case C‑21/14 P

European Commission

v

Rusal Armenal ZAO

‛Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China — Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 16 July 2015

1. International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — GATT 1994 — Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU act — Exceptions — EU act aimed at ensuring the implementation thereof or referring thereto expressly and specifically

   (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement’)

2. International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — GATT 1994 — Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU act — Exceptions — EU act aimed at ensuring the implementation thereof or referring thereto expressly and specifically — Criteria for assessment

   (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement’, Art. 2; Council Regulation No 2117/2005, Recital 5, and Art. 2(7))

3. International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — GATT 1994 — Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU act — Exceptions — EU act aimed at ensuring the implementation thereof or referring thereto expressly and specifically — General reference to WTO Agreement — Not included

   (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement’, Art. 2; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, Recital 5 and Art. 2(7))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 37-41)

2.  The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) anti-dumping system can, in certain cases, constitute an exception to the general principle that the EU Courts cannot review the legality of the acts of the EU institutions in the light of whether they are consistent with the rules of the WTO agreements. However, in order for such an exception to be allowed in a specific case, it must also be established to the requisite legal standard that the legislature has shown the intention to implement in EU law a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO agreements.

   To that end, it is not sufficient for the preamble to the EU act in question to support only a general inference that that legal act has been adopted with due regard for international obligations entered into by the European Union. It is, on the other hand, necessary to be able to deduce from the specific provision of EU law contested that it seeks to implement into EU law a particular obligation stemming from the WTO agreements.

   Since there are no specific rules on non-market economy WTO member countries in the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( ‘the Anti-Dumping Agreement’), a correlation cannot be established between, on the one hand, the rules in Article 2(7) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as most recently amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, directed at the imports from non-market economy WTO member countries and, on the other, the rules set out in Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. It follows that that provision of that regulation cannot be considered to be a measure intended to ensure the implementation in the EU legal order of a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO.

   Furthermore, the expression in recital 5 of Regulation No 384/96, which states that the rules of the Anti-Dumping Agreement should be brought into EU legislation ‘as far as possible’, must be understood as meaning that even if the EU legislature intended to take into account the rules of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when adopting that regulation, it did not, however, show the intention of transposing all those rules in that regulation.

   (see paras 44-46, 50, 52)

3.  Article 2(7) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as most recently amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, does not refer expressly to a specific provision of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the general reference to the provisions of that agreement in recital 5 of that regulation being insufficient in itself to conclude that there is such a reference.

   (see para. 59)

Case C‑21/14 P

European Commission

v

Rusal Armenal ZAO

‛Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China — Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 16 July 2015

1. International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — GATT 1994 — Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU act — Exceptions — EU act aimed at ensuring the implementation thereof or referring thereto expressly and specifically

   (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement’)

2. International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — GATT 1994 — Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU act — Exceptions — EU act aimed at ensuring the implementation thereof or referring thereto expressly and specifically — Criteria for assessment

   (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement’, Art. 2; Council Regulation No 2117/2005, Recital 5, and Art. 2(7))

3. International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — GATT 1994 — Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU act — Exceptions — EU act aimed at ensuring the implementation thereof or referring thereto expressly and specifically — General reference to WTO Agreement — Not included

   (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ‘Anti-Dumping Agreement’, Art. 2; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, Recital 5 and Art. 2(7))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 37-41)

2.  The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) anti-dumping system can, in certain cases, constitute an exception to the general principle that the EU Courts cannot review the legality of the acts of the EU institutions in the light of whether they are consistent with the rules of the WTO agreements. However, in order for such an exception to be allowed in a specific case, it must also be established to the requisite legal standard that the legislature has shown the intention to implement in EU law a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO agreements.

   To that end, it is not sufficient for the preamble to the EU act in question to support only a general inference that that legal act has been adopted with due regard for international obligations entered into by the European Union. It is, on the other hand, necessary to be able to deduce from the specific provision of EU law contested that it seeks to implement into EU law a particular obligation stemming from the WTO agreements.

   Since there are no specific rules on non-market economy WTO member countries in the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( ‘the Anti-Dumping Agreement’), a correlation cannot be established between, on the one hand, the rules in Article 2(7) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as most recently amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, directed at the imports from non-market economy WTO member countries and, on the other, the rules set out in Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. It follows that that provision of that regulation cannot be considered to be a measure intended to ensure the implementation in the EU legal order of a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO.

   Furthermore, the expression in recital 5 of Regulation No 384/96, which states that the rules of the Anti-Dumping Agreement should be brought into EU legislation ‘as far as possible’, must be understood as meaning that even if the EU legislature intended to take into account the rules of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when adopting that regulation, it did not, however, show the intention of transposing all those rules in that regulation.

   (see paras 44-46, 50, 52)

3.  Article 2(7) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as most recently amended by Regulation No 2117/2005, does not refer expressly to a specific provision of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the general reference to the provisions of that agreement in recital 5 of that regulation being insufficient in itself to conclude that there is such a reference.

   (see para. 59)