Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:213
Date: 2002-09-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons;Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures;Effects of a declaration that a measure is void
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

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) 
II - 3651 
SUMMARY — CASE T-89/00 
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 oper­
ative part of the judgment but also the 
grounds which led to that judgment 
and constitute its essential basis, inas­
much as they are necessary to deter­
mine 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 institu­
tion 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 pro­
cedure 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 provi­
sion 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 
II - 3652 
EUROPE CHEMI-CON (DEUTSCHLAND) v COUNCIL 
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 regu­
lation, 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) 
II - 3653