Order — ECLI:EU:C:2011:665
Date: 2011-10-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Application to intervene;Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 13 December 2012 (*) (Appeal – Intervention – Application for rectification under Article 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Costs) In Case C‑3/11 P(I), APPEAL under Article 57 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 31 December 2010, Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie eV, established in Eschborn (Germany), Lück GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bocholt (Germany), Sandler AG, established in Schwarzenbach/Saale (Germany), represented by Y. Melin, avocat, F. Crespo, advogada, and J. Beck, Solicitor, appellants, the other parties to the proceedings being: Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, established in Zhejiang (China), Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, established in Zhejiang, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, established in Ningbo (China), Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd, established in Jiangyin (China), Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, established in Zhejiang, Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd, established in Jiangsu (China), Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, established in Zhejiang, Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd, established in Zhejiang, represented J.-F. Bellis, avocat, applicants at first instance, Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen, acting as Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, defendant at first instance, European Commission, represented by H. van Vliet and M. França, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, intervener at first instance, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT, after hearing the Advocate General, Y. Bot, makes the following Order 1 By their appeal, the appellants, Gesamtverband der Deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie eV, Lück GmbH & Co. KG and Sandler AG asked the Court to set aside the order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 14 December 2010 in Case T‑537/08 Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and Others v Council, regarding the rejection of their applications for leave to intervene in support of the form of orders of the applicants at first instance in Case T‑537/08, which concerned an application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008 maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 247, p. 1). 2 The applicants at first instance, Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Jiangyin Changlong Chemical Fibre Co. Ltd, Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd, Xiake Color Spinning Co. Ltd, Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co. Ltd, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission submitted their observations on the appeal on 31 January, 2 and 2 and 1 February 2011 respectively. 3 By order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2011 in Case C‑3/11 P(I) Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others the appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to bear their own costs. 4 By letter of 11 November 2011, the Council submitted an application for rectification of that order under Article 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice adopted on 19 June 1991, as amended most recently on 24 May 2011 (OJ 2011 L 162, p. 1), in force on the date on which that order was signed. That application seeks an order that the appellants pay the Council’s costs. 5 Under the first paragraph of Article 67 of the Rules of Procedure, if the Court has omitted to give a decision on costs, any party may within a month after service of the judgment apply to the Court to supplement its judgment. 6 In their submissions on the appeal, the Council and the Commission contended that the appellants should be ordered to pay the costs. The order in Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others omits to give a decision on those claims. 7 Therefore, in accordance with Article 67 of the Rules of Procedure, the failure to give a decision on the costs for the Council and the Commission must be rectified. 8 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal in accordance with Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Council and the Commission have applied for an order that the appellants pay the costs and the latter have been unsuccessful, the appellants must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders that the order in Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others is to be rectified as follows: 1) The order in Case C‑3/11 P(I) Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others shall be supplemented by a paragraph 34, which is to be worded as follows: ‘Costs Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal in accordance with Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Council and the Commission have applied for costs and Lück GmbH & Co. KG, Sandler AG and Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie eV have been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.’ 2) Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the order in Case C‑3/11 P(I) Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others is to be replaced by the following text: ‘Lück GmbH & Co. KG, Sandler AG and Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie eV shall pay the costs.’ 3) The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified judgment. A note of the order shall be made in the margin of the original of the judgment. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.