Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance — Failure to identify the error of law relied on — Inadmissible — (EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1), first subpara., (c))

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — (EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 6(9))

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties and decision to close the anti-dumping proceeding without the imposition of anti-dumping duties — Effect of regulatory nature of the proceedings — None — (EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Admissibility of actions brought by the complainants and, in certain circumstances, of actions brought by the producers, exporters and importers of the products concerned — (EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — (EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 9(4) and 21)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure — Inadequate statement of reasons — No liability — (EC Treaty, Arts 190 and 215, second para. (now Arts 253 and 288, second para., EC))

Summary

1. It follows from Article 168a of the Treaty (now Article 225 EC), the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1), first subparagraph, (c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

see paras 46-47

2. Only a measure whose legal effects are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting his interests is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC). In the case of acts adopted by a procedure involving several stages, and particularly where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, it is in principle only those measures which definitively determine the position of the Commission or the Council upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare the final decision.

An act which is neither capable of producing nor intended to produce any legal effects cannot form the basis of an action for annulment. In order to ascertain whether or not a measure which has been challenged produces such effects it is necessary to look to its substance.

It follows that the failure to adopt the proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty submitted by the Commission, together with the expiry of the 15-month period provided for in Article 6(a) of the basic anti-dumping regulation No 384/96, which determined definitively the Council ' s position in the final phase of the anti-dumping proceedings, has all the characteristics of a reviewable act within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, in that it produced binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the undertakings which brought the action initiating the anti-dumping investigation on behalf of the Community industry.

see paras 54-56, 65-67

3. Anti-dumping proceedings are similar in several respects to an administrative procedure. In such matters, the Council acts under rules ─ the basic regulation ─ which set well-defined limits to the powers of the institutions and offer procedural safeguards to the economic operators concerned and to their professional associations. In so doing, the Council acts within a regulatory framework which it has imposed on itself, specifying the conditions in which an anti-dumping regulation may be adopted as well as the Council ' s room for manoeuvre as to whether or not to adopt such measures.

It follows that not only regulations imposing definitive anti-dumping duties adopted at the end of anti-dumping proceedings, but also decisions of the Commission or the Council to close anti-dumping proceedings without imposing anti-dumping duties may be the subject of actions before the Community Courts.

see paras 69-72

4. Although regulations imposing anti-dumping duties are legislative in nature and scope, in that they apply to all economic operators, they may nevertheless be of individual concern not only to Community producers, as complainants, but also, in certain circumstances, to the producers and exporters of the product in question who are alleged to be dumping, and, in certain circumstances, to importers of that product.

see para. 73

5. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 190 must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

When the Council decides not to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties, it should provide an adequate statement of reasons which shows clearly and unambiguously why, in the light of the provisions of the basic regulation, there is no need to adopt the proposal.

From the time when, under Article 9(4) of the basic anti-dumping regulation No 384/96, " a definitive anti-dumping duty shall be imposed by the Council" , " [w]here the facts as finally established show that there is dumping and injury caused thereby, and the Community interest calls for intervention in accordance with Article 21" , compliance with the obligation to state reasons requires the act by which the Council decides not to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties to indicate the absence of dumping or corresponding injury or that the Community interest does not call for intervention on its part.

see paras 88-91

6. Community law confers a right to reparation where three conditions are met: the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties.

An inadequate statement of reasons for an act bringing proceedings in respect of anti-dumping duties to an end is of itself no more sufficient to cause the Community to incur liability than is inadequacy in the statement of reasons for a legislative measure.

see paras 97-99