Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:216
Date: 2001-09-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First 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
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Action for annulment - inadmissible

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Regulation imposing countervailing duties — Produ­
cers and exporters from non-member countries 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., 
EC)) 
II - 2521 
SUMMARY — CASE T-58/99 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation by non-member 
countries — Injury — Assessment by the institutions — Judicial review — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 2026/97, Arts 15 and 19) 
1. Under the fourth paragraph of Arti­
cle 173 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, the fourth paragraph of 
Article 230 EC), a natural or legal 
person may institute proceedings 
against an act of the Commission or 
of the Council only if it is a decision 
addressed to it, or a decision which, 
although in the form of a regulation or 
a decision addressed to another person, 
is of direct and individual concern to it. 
In the case of an action brought by an 
undertaking engaged in production and 
export for annulment of a regulation 
which establishes a definitive counter­
vailing duty on imports and collects 
definitively a provisional duty, whilst 
the undertaking must be regarded as 
being directly and individually con­
cerned by any provisions which estab­
lish a definitive countervailing duty or 
collect definitively a provisional duty 
on imports of products which it has 
produced, it does not, on the other 
hand, have locus standi to apply for 
annulment of provisions of the regula­
tion that concern other companies. 
(see paras 20-21) 
2. As regards the implementation by the 
Community institutions of Arti­
cle 15(1) of the basic Regulation 
No 2026/97 on protection against sub­
sidised imports from countries not 
members of the European Community 
and Articles 15 and 19 of the Agree­
ment on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures concluded within the World 
Trade Organisation in the context of 
the Uruguay Round of Negotiations, 
the question whether a Community 
industry has suffered injury and, if so, 
whether that injury is attributable to 
dumped or subsidised imports involves 
the assessment of complex economic 
matters in respect of which the institu­
tions enjoy a wide discretion. Conse­
quently, judicial review of any such 
assessment must be confined to ascer­
taining whether the procedural rules 
have been complied with, whether the 
facts on which the contested decision is 
II - 2522 
MUKAND AND OTHERS v COUNCIL 
based have been accurately stated and 
whether there has been any manifest 
error of assessment of the facts or any 
misuse of powers. 
The institutions make a manifest error 
of assessment of the injury where they 
disregarded a known factor, other than 
the subsidised imports — such as a 
uniform, consistent industrial practice 
on the part of Community producers in 
pricing matters the objective effect of 
which is to mirror, in the product 
market in question, artificial price 
increases — which might have been a 
concurrent cause of the injury sus­
tained by the Community industry. 
(see paras 38, 45, 48) 
II - 2523