Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2003:26
Date: 2003-01-16
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful
Origin: Belgium;Germany;France;Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments previously 
submitted to the Court of First Instance — Failure to identify the error of law relied 
on — Inadmissible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, 
para. 1; Rides of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1), first subpara., (c)) 
I - 10091 
SUMMARY — CASE C-76/01 P 
2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing 
binding legal effects — Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing 
anti-dumping duties 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC); Council Regulation 
No 384/96, Art. 6(9)) 
3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Regulation imposing definitive 
anti-dumping duties and decision to close the anti-dumping proceeding without the 
imposition of anti-dumping duties — Effect of regulatory nature of the proceedings — 
None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC)) 
4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and 
individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Admissi­
bility of actions brought by the complainants and, in certain circumstances, of actions 
brought by the producers, exporters and importers of the products concerned 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para, (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC)) 
5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Failure 
to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 9(4) and 
6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure — Inadequate state­
ment of reasons — No liability 
(EC Treaty, Arts 190 and 215, second para, (now Arts 253 and 288, second para., EC)) 
1. It follows from Article 168a of the 
Treaty (now Article 225 EC), the first 
paragraph of Article 51 of the EC 
Statute of the Court of Justice and 
Article 112(1), first subparagraph, (c) 
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court 
of Justice that an appeal must indicate 
precisely the contested elements of the 
judgment which the appellant seeks to 
have set aside and also the legal 
arguments specifically advanced in sup­
port of the appeal. 
That requirement is not satisfied by an 
appeal which, without even including 
an argument specifically identifying the 
error of law allegedly vitiating the 
contested judgment, confines itself to 
reproducing the pleas in law and argu­
ments previously submitted to the 
Court of First Instance. Such an appeal 
amounts in reality to no more than a 
request for re-examination of the appli­
cation submitted to the Court of First 
Instance, which the Court of Justice 
does not have jurisdiction to under­
take. 
(see paras 46-47) 
I - 10092 
EUROCOTON AND OTHERS v COUNCIL 
2. Only a measure whose legal effects are 
binding on the applicant and are 
capable of affecting his interests is an 
act or decision which may be the 
subject of an action for annulment 
under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, 
after amendment, Article 230 EC). In 
the case of acts adopted by a procedure 
involving several stages, and particu­
larly where they are the culmination of 
an internal procedure, it is in principle 
only those measures which definitively 
determine the position of the Commis­
sion or the Council upon the con­
clusion of that procedure which are 
open to challenge and not intermediate 
measures whose purpose is to prepare 
the final decision. 
An act which is neither capable of 
producing nor intended to produce any 
legal effects cannot form the basis of an 
action for annulment. In order to 
ascertain whether or not a measure 
which has been challenged produces 
such effects it is necessary to look to its 
substance. 
It follows that the failure to adopt the 
proposal for a regulation imposing a 
definitive anti-dumping duty submitted 
by the Commission, together with the 
expiry of the 15-month period pro­
vided for in Article 6(a) of the basic 
anti-dumping regulation No 384/96, 
which determined definitively the 
Council's position in the final phase 
of the anti-dumping proceedings, has 
all the characteristics of a reviewable 
act within the meaning of Article 173 
of the Treaty, in that it produced 
binding legal effects capable of affect­
ing the interests of the undertakings 
which brought the action initiating the 
anti-dumping investigation on behalf 
of the Community industry. 
(see paras 54-56, 65-67) 
3. Anti-dumping proceedings are similar 
in several respects to an administrative 
procedure. In such matters, the Council 
acts under rules — the basic regu­
lation — which set well-defined limits 
to the powers of the institutions and 
offer procedural safeguards to the 
economic operators concerned and to 
their professional associations. In so 
doing, the Council acts within a regu­
latory framework which it has imposed 
on itself, specifying the conditions in 
which an anti-dumping regulation may 
be adopted as well as the Council's 
room for manœuvre as to whether or 
not to adopt such measures. 
It follows that not only regulations 
imposing definitive anti-dumping 
duties adopted at the end of anti-dump­
ing proceedings, but also decisions of 
I - 10093 
SUMMARY — CASE C-76/01 P 
the Commission or the Council to close 
anti-dumping proceedings without 
imposing anti-dumping duties may be 
the subject of actions before the Com­
munity Courts. 
(see paras 69-72) 
4. Although regulations imposing anti­
dumping duties are legislative in nature 
and scope, in that they apply to all 
economic operators, they may never­
theless be of individual concern not 
only to Community producers, as com­
plainants, but also, in certain circum­
stances, to the producers and exporters 
of the product in question who are 
alleged to be dumping, and, in certain 
circumstances, to importers of that 
product. 
(see para. 73) 
5. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 190 of the Treaty (now 
Article 253 EC) must be appropriate 
to the act at issue and must disclose in a 
clear and unequivocal fashion the rea­
soning followed by the institution 
which adopted the measure in question 
in such a way as to enable the persons 
concerned to ascertain the reasons for 
the measure and to enable the compet­
ent Community Court to exercise its 
power of review. The requirements to 
be satisfied by the statement of reasons 
depend on the circumstances of each 
case, in particular the content of the 
measure in question, the nature of the 
reasons given and the interest which 
the addressees of the measure, or other 
parties to whom it is of direct and 
individual concern, may have in 
obtaining explanations. It is not necess­
ary for the reasoning to go into all the 
relevant facts and points of law, since 
the question whether the statement of 
reasons meets the requirements of 
Article 190 must be assessed with 
regard not only to its wording but also 
to its context and to all the legal rules 
governing the matter in question. 
When the Council decides not to adopt 
a proposal for a regulation imposing 
definitive anti-dumping duties, it 
should provide an adequate statement 
of reasons which shows clearly and 
unambiguously why, in the light of the 
provisions of the basic regulation, there 
is no need to adopt the proposal. 
From the time when, under Article 9(4) 
of the basic anti-dumping regulation 
No 384/96, 'a definitive anti-dumping 
duty shall be imposed by the Council', 
'[wjhere the facts as finally established 
show that there is dumping and injury 
caused thereby, and the Community 
interest calls for intervention in accord­
ance with Article 21' , compliance with 
I - 10094 
EUROCOTON AND OTHERS v COUNCIL 
the obligation to state reasons requires 
the act by which the Council decides 
not to adopt a proposal for a regulation 
imposing definitive anti-dumping 
duties to indicate the absence of dump­
ing or corresponding injury or that the 
Community interest does not call for 
intervention on its part. 
(see paras 88-91) 
6. Community law confers a right to 
reparation where three conditions are 
met: the rule of law infringed must be 
intended to confer rights on individ­
uals; the breach must be sufficiently 
serious; and there must be a direct 
causal link between the breach of the 
obligation resting on the author of the 
act and the damage sustained by the 
injured parties. 
An inadequate statement of reasons for 
an act bringing proceedings in respect 
of anti-dumping duties to an end is of 
itself no more sufficient to cause the 
Community to incur liability than is 
inadequacy in the statement of reasons 
for a legislative measure. 
(see paras 97-99) 
I - 10095