Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:673
Date: 2015-09-23
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Provisions governing the Institutions;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 23 September 2015 1. Actions for damages — Autonomous form of action — Exhaustion of national rights of action — Exception — Impossible or excessively difficult to obtain compensation before the national courts — Burden of proof — Scope — Limited to providing indicators capable of raising serious doubts as to the effectiveness of the protection ensured by internal remedies (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) 2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) 3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Sufficiently serious breach of EU law — Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion — Non-pursuit of investigations during an anti-dumping proceedings — No total disregard of the obligations flowing from the duty of diligence — Liability of the EU not engaged (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 2(7)(a)) 4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 18, 21, 28) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 31, 57) 3. Where the institutions have a discretion, the decisive criterion for finding an infringement of EU law sufficiently serious to render the EU non-contractually liable is manifest and serious disregard of the limits imposed on the latter. In order to establish the degree of discretion available to the institutions, it is first necessary to determine the conduct of which the institutions are accused in implementing Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009. Such a step is explained by the fact that implementation of a provision can entail various actions over which the institution responsible for the implementation may not necessarily have the same degree of discretion. That is the case, in particular, with provisions establishing the method for calculating a value, such as the normal value that is used in calculating the dumping margin. The Commission enjoys a degree of discretion in the context of an anti-dumping investigation, both in relation to the analysis of statistical data provided by Eurostat and in the pursuit of its investigations on the basis of that analysis for the purposes of determining a market economy third country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96. In the case of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties which has been declared invalid on the ground that the Commission disregarded its duty of diligence by not carrying out its investigations whereas it should have done, the conduct thus complained of against the Commission is not having made a serious and sufficient effort and thereby making an erroneous assessment of the extent of its obligations flowing from its duty of diligence. By so doing, the Commission does not, however, totally disregard the obligations flowing from its duty of diligence where it does not abstain from carrying out investigations, but carries out investigations on its own initiative during a proceeding whereby it discovers the existence of two producers, originating in a non-member country, of the product covered by the anti-dumping duties, to which it sends questionnaires. In those circumstances, the institutions cannot be accused of any act or conduct capable of rendering the EU liable, and the non-contractual liability of the EU cannot be engaged. (see paras 36, 38, 41-43, 45, 47, 49-52, 54-57) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 59)