Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:166
Date: 2001-06-20
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: General;Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment of measures — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action 
brought against a decision terminating an expiry review of anti-dumping measures 
(Arts 231 EC and 233 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11(2» 
II - 1757 
SUMMARY — CASET-188/99 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review proce­
dure — Retention of a measure — Conditions — Continuation or recurrence of 
injury — Assessment criteria — Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11(2), first subpara.) 
3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review proce­
dure — Discretion of the institutions — judicial review — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11(2)) 
4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review proce­
dure — Initiation of procedure —· Conditions — Sufficient evidence — Possible 
situations — Difference from the conditions justifying the retention of anti-dumping 
measures 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11(2)) 
5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review proce­
dure — Investigation — Whether information relating to a period subsequent to the 
investigation period to be taken into account as justification for the retention of an 
anti-dumping measure — Such information not to be taken into account 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 6(1) and 11(2) and (5)) 
1. An action for annulment brought by a 
natural or legal person is not admissi­
ble unless the applicant has an interest 
in seeing the contested measure 
annulled. Such an interest can be 
present only if the annulment of the 
measure is itself capable of having legal 
consequences. 
That is the case for annulment of a 
decision terminating the expiry review 
of anti-dumping measures under Arti­
cle 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping 
regulation (Regulation No 384/96) 
initiated at the request of an associa­
tion of production companies repre­
senting the Community industry. 
(see paras 26-29) 
2. It is clear from the first subparagraph 
of Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dump­
ing regulation (Regulation No 384/96) 
that retention of a measure depends on 
the result of an assessment of the 
consequences of its expiry, that is, on 
a forecast based on hypotheses regard­
ing future developments in the situa­
tion on the market concerned. It is also 
clear that the mere possibility that 
injury might continue or recur is insuf-
II - 1758 
EUROALLIAGES v COMMISSION 
ficient to justify retaining a measure; 
that is dependent on the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of injury-
being established. It is not necessary for 
there to be proof of the continuation or 
recurrence of injury, merely that there 
should exist a likelihood of this. 
(see paras 42, 44) 
3. In the context of an expiry review of 
anti-dumping measures under Arti­
cle 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping 
regulation (Regulation No 384/96), 
the assessment of the likelihood of 
recurrence of the injury after expiry of 
the measures adopted calls for an 
appraisal of complex economic ques­
tions in which the Community institu­
tions have a wide discretion. Judicial 
review of such an assessment must 
therefore be limited to verifying whe­
ther the procedural rules have been 
complied with, whether the facts on 
which the contested choice is based 
have been accurately stated and whe­
ther there has been a manifest error in 
assessing those facts or a misuse of 
powers. 
(see para. 46) 
4. The conditions for initiating an expiry 
review of ant i-dumping measures 
should not be confused with the con­
ditions for retaining the measures. It is 
clear from the broad logic of Arti­
cle 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping 
regulation (Regulation No 384/96) 
that it is sufficient for the purposes of 
initiating a review that the request 
submitted on behalf of the Community 
industry be supported in particular by 
evidence of one of the three situations 
listed in the second sentence of the 
second subparagraph of Article 11(2). 
Those three situations do not, as such, 
constitute criteria for assessing the 
likelihood of recurrence of injury 
within the meaning of the first subpara­
graph of Article 11(2). 
As far as the first situation is con­
cerned, a review should be initiated on 
the basis of sufficient evidence that 
dumping and injury are continuing; it is 
not necessary that continuation be 
already established. However, the exis­
tence of such evidence should not 
prejudice the result of the review. As 
far as the second situation is concerned, 
admittedly a review should be con­
ducted where the request contains 
sufficient evidence that removal of the 
injury is due in whole or in part to the 
existence of measures . However, 
removal alone does not support the 
conclusion that it is likely that injury 
will recur if the measures expire. The 
third situation concerns expressly the 
likelihood of further injurious dump­
ing. It is not necessary, however, in 
order for a review to be initiated, that 
II - 1759 
SUMMARY — CASE T-188/99 
the circumstances of exporters and the 
market conditions which make recur­
rence of dumping and injury likely be 
actually established. The request for a 
review need merely contain evidence 
on which to base the relevant inquiry. 
However, in order to retain measures in 
accordance with the first subparagraph 
of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, 
the circumstances surrounding that 
likelihood must be established on the 
basis of the results of an investigation. 
(see paras 51-56) 
5. The rule laid down in Article 6(1) of 
the basic anti-dumping regulation 
(Regulation No 384/96) that informa­
tion relating to a period subsequent to 
the investigation period is not, nor­
mally, to be taken into account applies 
also to investigations relating to expiry 
reviews. 
Article 11(2) of the basic regulation 
makes the retention of protective mea­
sures after the expiry of a five-year 
period conditional upon the conduct of 
an investigation in accordance with the 
basic regulation in order to establish 
the factual data from which the like­
lihood of recurrence of injury may be 
inferred. However, where the results of 
such an investigation are insufficient to 
justify retaining anti-dumping duties, 
the basic regulation provides that they 
should expire. That means that factors 
which arise after the investigation 
period cannot be taken into account 
in order to retain anti-dumping mea­
sures. 
(see paras 74, 76-77) 
II - 1760