Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:175
Date: 2000-06-29
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: General;Applications by natural or legal persons;Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Action brought against an anti-dumping regulation closing 
an interim review and reducing the definitive anti-dumping duty — Action limited to 
challenging non-retroactivity of the regulation — Simultaneous request for recovery 
under the basic anti-dumping regulation — Distinct — Admissibility 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC, fourth para.); 
Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11(8)) 
2. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Importer challenging 
non-retroactivity of a regulation reducing anti-dumping duties 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC, fourth para.)) 
II - 2671 
SUMMARY — CASE T-7/99 
3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual 
concern to them — Regulation amending anti-dumping duties — Importer whose 
resale prices have been used to construct the export price 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment Art. 230 EC, fourth para.)) 
4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Review procedure — 
Purpose 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11) 
5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Review of the facts 
justifying the imposition of anti-dumping duties — Review relating to the same period 
as the initial investigation — finding that the criteria for imposing duties were not 
satisfied — Duty of the institutions to abide by the consequences — Retroactive 
application of corrective measures — Permissibility — Infringement of the principle of 
legal certainty — None 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 1) 
1. The exception to the principle of 
autonomy of remedies — whereby an 
applicant who has not challenged an 
act within the time-limits prescribed by 
Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, Article 230 EC) cannot 
rely on a different remedy in order to 
circumvent the inadmissibility of an 
application for annulment — presup­
poses that the applicant has already 
had an opportunity to submit for 
review by the Community judicature 
the act or conduct of the administra­
tion which is effectively the subject of 
the second claim. It does not apply, 
therefore, where the two actions arise 
as a result of different acts or conduct 
on the part of the administration, even 
if the financial outcome of the two 
actions is the same for the applicant. 
In that connection, where, following a 
review of the measures imposed in the 
context of an anti-dumping procedure, 
the Council adopts a regulation redu­
cing the duties on imports by certain 
operators to 0%, an action by such an 
operator seeking annulment of that 
regulation in so far as it was not 
applied retroactively, and an applica­
tion for recovery of the duties paid 
under the amended regulation made 
under Article 11(8) of the basic regula­
tion, are distinct and relate to different 
acts. 
(see paras 44-45) 
2. An undertaking which has imported 
goods subject to anti-dumping duty 
into the Community has an interest in 
the annulment of a Council regulation 
which, following a review, reduces that 
II - 2672 
MEDICI GRIMM V COUNCIL 
duty to 0%, in that the Council did not 
grant its request for retroactive appli­
cation of the provisions amending the 
rate of duty chargeable on its imports. 
The fact that the contested regulation is 
favourable to the applicant overall 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 amended duties as they apply to it. 
(see para. 55) 
3. An importer whose resale prices were 
used in order to construct export prices 
in an anti-dumping procedure is indi­
vidually concerned by a regulation 
amending the anti-dumping duties fol­
lowing a review and has locus standi to 
bring an action for annulment against 
that regulation. 
(see para. 65) 
4. The review procedure provided for 
under Article 11 of the basic anti­
dumping Regulation No 384/96 
applies if there is a change in the 
circumstances on the basis of which 
the values applied in the regulation 
imposing the anti-dumping duties were 
established. The purpose of the review 
procedure is therefore to adapt the 
duties imposed to take account of an 
evolution in the factors which gave rise 
to them and the procedure therefore 
presupposes that those factors have 
altered. 
(see para. 82) 
5. Where, in an investigation such as that 
carried out by the Commission in order 
to enable undertakings which did not 
participate in an anti-dumping proce­
dure to receive individual treatment 
based on their export prices, the insti­
tutions, having used the same investi­
gation period as that used for the 
original investigation, find that one of 
the factors on the basis of which the 
definitive anti-dumping duties were 
imposed is missing, it is no longer 
possible to consider the conditions laid 
down in Article 1 of the basic anti­
dumping Regulation No 384/96 were 
satisfied at the time when the original 
regulation was adopted and that the 
trade-protection measures were there­
fore necessary. That being so, the 
institutions are bound to abide by all 
the consequences flowing from their 
choice of investigation period for the 
review in question and, where they find 
that the person in question did not 
engage in dumping during that period, 
they must give that finding retroactive 
effect. 
Although, as a general rule, the princi­
ple of legal certainty precludes a Com­
munity act from taking effect as from a 
date prior to its publication, the posi­
tion may exceptionally be otherwise 
II - 2673 
SUMMARY — CASE T-7/99 
where the purpose to be attained so 
requires and the legitimate expecta­
tions of the persons concerned are 
properly respected. Consequently, the 
retroactive application of acts of the 
institutions is permissible if it is cap­
able of placing the person concerned in 
a more favourable legal situation and 
provided that his legitimate expecta­
tions are properly respected. 
(see paras 87, 90-91) 
II - 2674