Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:400
Date: 1997-09-16
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Provisional data;Japan

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Procedure — Time-limits — Extension on account of distance — Application to the Commu­
nity institutions — Place of residence to be taken into consideration in the case of an appeal 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Annex II, Art. 1) 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Review procedure — 
Re-opening of investigation — Conditions — Sufficient evidence of dumping and resultant 
injury 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 4, 7, 14 and 15) 
1. For the purposes of lodging an appeal, 
the Commission, whose seat is in Brus­
sels, is entitled to a procedural extension 
on account of distance of two days, pur­
suant to Article 1 of the Decision of the 
Court on extension of time-limits on 
I -401 
SUMMARY — CASE C-245/95 P 
account of distance, forming Annex II to 
the rules of Procedure of the Court of 
Justice, despite the fact that it has stated 
an address for service in Luxembourg for 
the purposes of the procedure before the 
Court of First Instance. 
The above provision takes into consider­
ation only the place of habitual residence 
of the party concerned, not the address 
for service given by that party in accord­
ance with Article 44(2) of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of First Instance 
or Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of Justice. 
Moreover, appeal proceedings before the 
Court of Justice are distinct from previ­
ous proceedings before the Court of First 
Instance, so that the choice of an address 
for service for the purposes of those pro­
ceedings does not apply for the purposes 
of any appeal. 
2. The existence of sufficient evidence of 
dumping and the injury resulting there­
from is always a prerequisite for the 
opening of an investigation, within the 
meaning of Article 7 of the basic anti­
dumping Regulation N o 2423/88, 
whether at the initiation of an anti­
dumping proceeding or in the course of a 
review of a regulation imposing anti­
dumping duties. 
In that connection, where, in the course 
of a review procedure opened pursuant to 
Articles 14 and 15 of the basic regulation, 
the Community institutions must con­
sider whether the expiry of an anti­
dumping measure previously imposed 
could once more lead to injury or to a 
threat of injury, such consideration must 
comply with the provisions of Article 4 
of the basic regulation. 
I -402