Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:663
Date: 2025-07-02
Language of the case: English
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 July 2025 – PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya v Commission (Case T‑187/23) ( Commercial policy – Dumping – Imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Request for individual examination – Unduly burdensome – Article 9(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Continuation of the investigation after withdrawal of the complaint – Article 3(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Article 9(2) and (4) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Injury analysis – Article 21(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Union interest analysis – Manifest error of assessment – Error of law ) 1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Course of the investigation – Sampling – Request for individual examination of the exporting producers not included in the sample – No obligation on the Commission to carry out such an individual examination – The Commission being able to refuse that individual examination in view of the complexity and of the impact on the length of the investigation – Interpretation in the light of the 1994 GATT Anti-Dumping Agreement (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 17(3)) (see paragraphs 29-62, 66-69) 2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Course of the investigation – Sampling – Request for individual examination of the exporting producers not included in the sample – No obligation on the Commission to carry out such an individual examination – The Commission being able to refuse that individual examination in view of the complexity and of the impact on the length of the investigation – Number of requests for individual examinations irrelevant (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 17(3)) (see paragraphs 74, 75) 3. Action for annulment – Review of legality – Criteria – Commission decision imposing anti-dumping duties – Account taken of the previous decision-making practice of the institutions – None – Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Absence (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036) (see paragraphs 95, 96, 188, 262) 4. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Investigation – No obligation on the Commission to terminate the proceeding following the withdrawal of the complaint (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 9(1)) (see paragraphs 152-156) 5. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Opening of the investigation – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 5(1), (3), (6) and (9)) (see paragraphs 160, 163-165) 6. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Investigation – No obligation on the Commission to terminate the proceeding following support for the complaint falling below minimum thresholds (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 5(1) and (4)) (see paragraphs 161, 162, 270) 7. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Fixing of anti-dumping duties – Assessment of the EU interest – Criteria – Taking into account of the withdrawal of the complaint – Condition – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review – Limits – Manifest error of assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 21(1) and (7)) (see paragraphs 177-183, 251) 8. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Factors to be taken into consideration – Withdrawal of the complaint – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 3(2), (3), (5) and (6)) (see paragraphs 200-204) 9. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Factors to be taken into consideration – Impact of the dumping on EU production – Existence of factors and indicators showing a positive tendency – Fact not excluding the conclusion that significant injury caused to the EU industry – Judicial review – Manifest error of assessment – Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 3(3) and (5)) (see paragraphs 209-230) 10. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Fixing of anti-dumping duties – Assessment of the EU interest – Criteria – Post-investigation period data taken into consideration – Refusal of the Commission to take certain information into account solely on the ground that it post-dated the investigation period – Error of law (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 6(1), third subpara., and 21(1) and (7)) (see paragraphs 281-317) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika Jaya to pay the costs.