Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:108
Date: 1998-05-25
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: General
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Application to intervene - decision unnecessary
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Order
Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Acts having binding legal effects
— Commission decision initiating an anti-dumping proceeding — Preparatory act
(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 384/96)
Measures whose legal effects are binding and
are capable of affecting the applicants' inter­
ests by clearly altering their legal position
constitute acts which may be the subject of
an action for annulment under Article 173 of
the Treaty. In the case of acts adopted by a
procedure involving several stages, in prin­
ciple only measures definitively laying down
the position of the institution on the conclu­
sion of the procedure constitute acts which
may be contested, as opposed to intermedi­
ate measures intended to pave the way for
II-2191
SUMMARY — CASE T-267/97
the final decision, whose legality may only
be challenged in an action brought against
the final decision. Moreover, only measures
immediately and irreversibly affecting the
legal position of the undertakings concerned
are of such a nature as to justify, before
completion of the administrative procedure,
the admissibility of an action for annulment.
Since the act by which the Commission ini­
tiates anti-dumping proceedings is a purely
preparatory act, it cannot be regarded as an
actionable measure. It follows from the pro­
visions of anti-dumping Regulation No
384/96 that the Commission is responsible
for carrying out investigations and deciding,
on the basis of those investigations, whether
to terminate the proceedings or to continue
them, either by adopting provisional mea­
sures or by proposing to the Council that it
adopt definitive measures.
That conclusion cannot be called into ques­
tion either by the fact that, before a particu­
lar complaint was submitted, the Commis­
sion's spokesman had stated that the
Commission would immediately open a pro­
cedure if a new complaint were lodged —
which is a matter which falls to be examined
in connection with the substantive legality of
the Notice of Initiation — or by any greater
or lesser degree of certainty as regards the
imposition of anti-dumping duties since, in
law, the initiation of an anti-dumping pro­
ceeding does not necessarily result in such
duties being imposed. Moreover, the Notice
of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding
does not have the legal effect of compelling
the undertakings concerned to alter their
commercial practices or to cooperate in the
investigation.
II-2192