Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:157
Date: 2000-06-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible

summary or one which focused on its marketing of Russian zinc within the Community as an exporter, an importer or in any other capacity (see paragraph 46 above). Nor has it produced figures to indicate changes in the volume of its sales of unwrought, unalloyed Russian zinc to Community undertakings or the proportion of its overall turnover accounted for by such sales; on the contrary, some of the documents which it did produce show that such sales increased after the contested Regulation entered into force. 50. Moreover, the argument based on the applicant's holding of capital in two shareholders of a Russian producer of the product at issue (the CEZP) (see paragraph 42 above) must be rejected. An applicant must show that it has a legal interest in bringing proceedings separate from that possessed by an undertaking which it partly controls and which is concerned by a Community measure (which might possibly be the position here in the case of the CEZP). Otherwise, in order to defend its interests in relation to that measure, its only remedy lies in the exercise of its rights as a member of the undertaking which itself has a right of action. In the present case, the applicant has failed to show that it has a legal interest separate from that possessed by the CEZP. However, even if a holding in the CEZP could constitute the basis of a right of action, the applicant's holding is insufficient because it is both indirect (being held through two other companies, Euromin Holdings Cyprus Ltd and Southwell Ltd) and partial (since those two companies own no more than 48.02% of the CEZP's capital). 51. It follows that the contested Regulation concerns the applicant, not by reason of certain attributes peculiar to it or factual circumstances which differentiate it from all other persons, but by reason solely of its objective status as a trader in Russian zinc, in the same way as any other trader who is or may be in the same circumstances. 52. It follows that the action must be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 53. Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs provided they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. As the applicant has been unsuccessful and the defendant has applied for costs, the applicant will be ordered to pay both its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that institutions which have intervened in a dispute are to bear their own costs; accordingly, the Commission will bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible; 2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs together with those incurred by the defendant; 3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. Jaeger Lenaerts Tiili Azizi Mengozzi Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 June 2000. H. Jung K. Lenaerts Registrar President 1: Language of the case: English.