Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:180
Date: 2016-03-17
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 17 March 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Question concerning the validity of a regulation which has not been contested on the basis of Article 263 TFEU — Action in the main proceedings brought by a company which is not clearly entitled to bring an action for annulment — Admissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 267(b), TFEU) 2. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures directly and individually concerning such persons — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Producers and exporters from third countries — EU importers and operators maintaining special relations with producers (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 412/2013) 3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Investigation — Definition of the product concerned — Interpretation in the light of the 1994 GATT Anti-Dumping Agreement — Taking into account the requirement that the product concerned be homogeneous (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement’; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Recital 4, Art. 1(2) and Art. 2; Council Decision 94/800) 4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1225/2009) 5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 412/2013) 1. The general principle which ensures that any person has the right to plead, in an action brought against a national measure which adversely affects that person, that the EU act on which that measure is based is invalid does not preclude such a right from being subject to the condition that the person concerned did not have the right to apply directly to the Courts of the European Union for annulment of that act under Article 263 TFEU. However, it is only if it can be held that a person would undoubtedly have been entitled to apply for the annulment of the act in question under the conditions laid down in that article that that person is prevented from pleading before the national court having jurisdiction that the act is invalid. (see para. 23) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 25-28) 3. Since Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation No 1225/2009 does not specify the scope of the concept of ‘product under consideration’, it is necessary to interpret that concept in the light of the 1994 Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Anti-Dumping Agreement) and in particular in the light of Article 2 thereof. However, that article does not specify the scope of that concept either and, in particular, there is nothing in its wording to support the idea of a specific requirement for homogeneity or similarity between the products at issue. That being said, taking account of the interpretation given to the detailed rules contained in that agreement by the European Union’s major trading partners, as stated in recital 4 to Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation No 1225/2009, some of those trading partners took the view that the product under consideration had to be homogeneous in nature and consist of similar products. Accordingly, they argued that the requirement that the product under consideration be homogeneous should not be entirely excluded from the interpretation of that regulation. (see paras 40, 41, 44, 45) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 47) 5. See the text of the decision. (see paras 53, 55, 56)