Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:251
Date: 2017-04-05
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Belgium;Spain;United Kingdom;Italy;Lithuania;Poland

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 5 April 2017 1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Decision not to maintain an anti-dumping measure — Conditions — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 11(2)) 2. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) 3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU) 4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Account taken of the context and all the legal rules (Art. 296 TFEU) 5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Assessment of the EU interest — Criteria (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 21(1)) 6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — No obligation on the court to examine in a given order (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) 7. Actions for damages — Imminent and foreseeable damage — Establishing the liability of the Union — Reference to the General Court — Lawfulness (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) 8. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) 1. According to the first subparagraph of Article 11(2) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 1225/2009, an anti-dumping measure is to expire five years from its imposition or five years from the date of the conclusion of the most recent review which has covered both dumping and injury, unless it is determined in a review that the expiry would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. It follows that, by virtue of that provision, the measures are to expire unless it has been shown that such expiry would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Pursuant to that provision, in order not to maintain a definitive anti-dumping measure, the Union institutions are not therefore required to demonstrate that the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury is unlikely, but may limit themselves to a finding that such a probability has not been demonstrated. Since examination of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury involves the assessment of complex economic matters, judicial review of such an appraisal must be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated, and whether there have been manifest errors in the assessment of those facts or a misuse of powers. Nevertheless, as regards review of the evidence on which the EU institutions based their findings, it is for the EU judicature not only to establish whether the evidence put forward is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also to determine whether that evidence contains all the relevant data that must be taken into consideration in appraising a complex situation and whether it was capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it. (see paras 48, 50, 55-57) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 71) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 85, 89, 119) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 116-118, 141) 5. In accordance with Article 21(1) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 1225/2009, even if the existence of a likelihood of injurious dumping is established, the expiry of the measures at issue is possible where the institutions can clearly conclude that it is not in the Union’s interest to apply such measures. The examination of the Union’s interest in accordance with Article 21(1) of the basic regulation requires an assessment of the likely consequences both of applying and of not applying the measures proposed for the interest of the Union industry and for the other interests at stake, in particular those of the various parties referred to in Article 21 of the basic regulation. That assessment involves a forecast based on hypotheses regarding future developments, which includes an appraisal of complex economic situations. (see paras 143, 144) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 155, 156, 171) 7. See the text of the decision. (see para. 159) 8. See the text of the decision. (see para. 173)