Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1997:494
Date: 1997-10-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Commercial policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment 
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Commission Decision No 2131/88 
imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain sheets or pUtes, of iron or steel, originating 
in YugosUvia — Scope — Products coming from the Former YugosUv Republic of Macedonia — 
Covered 
The anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant 
to Article 1 of Commission Decision 
No 2131/88/ECSC — imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain 
sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating 
in Yugoslavia — on imports of certain steel 
I - 5659 
SUMMARY — CASE C-177/96 
products Originating in Yugoslavia' also 
apply to products of that kind manufactured 
by a producer/exporter who had been estab­
lished in the Socialist Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia, but was in fact — by reason of 
the declaration of independence by the 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
(FYROM) — situated in the FYROM at the 
time when the products in question were 
imported. 
Since anti-dumping measures by their nature 
focus on particular products from a specified 
geographical area and their application 
accordingly depends on the origin of the 
goods, a change in the name or political 
organization of the geographical area 
referred to as the country of origin or of 
export in a decision imposing a provisional 
or definitive anti-dumping duty has no 
impact on the economic purpose of the duty 
imposed and cannot therefore by itself 
remove products originating in that geo­
graphical area from the duty's field of appli­
cation. 
Furthermore, if a supplier whose products 
were being dumped could avoid anti­
dumping duties solely because the authori­
ties of the territory in which he was situated 
had declared it independent, the anti­
dumping measures could well fall short of 
their objective, which is to shield an estab­
lished Community industry from injury. 
Even if, as a matter of public international 
law, the supplier came within the jurisdiction 
of a new State, that does not mean that his 
dumping practices would cease to injure 
Community industry. 
Moreover, the principles of international law 
regarding State succession are not directly 
applicable to anti-dumping duties, since such 
duties do not constitute State debts but 
charges payable by individuals. 
Lastly, that interpretation of Decision N o 
2131/88 is compatible with the principle of 
legal certainty, which is a fundamental prin­
ciple of Community law requiring in par­
ticular that rules imposing charges on a tax­
payer be clear and precise so that he may be 
able to ascertain unequivocally what his 
rights and obligations are and take steps 
accordingly. References in Decision N o 
2131/88 to the expression 'Yugoslavia' 
clearly indicate that it applies to all the terri­
tory lying within the boundaries of the 
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At 
the time when the decision was adopted, the 
expression 'Yugoslavia' was not capable of 
bearing any other interpretation and, since 
the fragmentation of the Socialist Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia, it cannot but desig­
nate the territory of the former republic. 
I - 5660