61985CO0299_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 299/85
TOKYO JUKI INDUSTRIAL CO . LTD, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS IN TOKYO, JAPAN, REPRESENTED BY PIERRE VAN OMMESLAGHE, OF THE BRUSSELS BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF JACQUES LOESCH, 8 RUE ZITHE,
APPLICANT,
V
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY HANS-JURGEN LAMBERS, DIRECTOR IN ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND ERIK STEIN, A LEGAL ADVISER, ACTING AS AGENTS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE JORG KASER, DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, 100 BOULEVARD KONRAD ADENAUER, KIRCHBERG,
AND
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, JOHN TEMPLE LANG, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF GIORGIOS KREMLIS, A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
DEFENDANTS,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1698/85 OF 19 JUNE 1985 IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON IMPORTS OF ELECTRONIC TYPEWRITERS ORIGINATING IN JAPAN IS VOID .
Grounds
UNDER ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE OBJECTION RAISED IS TO BE ORAL UNLESS THE COURT DECIDES OTHERWISE . IN THIS CASE, THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND THAT THERE IS THUS NO NEED TO OPEN THE ORAL PROCEDURE .
THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPLICATION REFER EXPRESSLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1698/85 OF 19 JUNE 1985 .
FURTHERMORE, THE COURT OBSERVES THAT THE COMMISSION ' S ROLE IS SITUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COUNCIL ' S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS . IT APPEARS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2176/84 OF 23 JULY 1984 ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPED OR SUBSIDIZED IMPORTS FROM COUNTRIES NOT MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1984, L 201, P . 1 ), ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE REGULATION AT ISSUE WAS ADOPTED, THAT THE COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVESTIGATIONS AND FOR DECIDING, ON THE BASIS OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, WHETHER TO TERMINATE THE PROCEEDINGS OR TO CONTINUE THEM BY ADOPTING PROVISIONAL MEASURES AND BY PROPOSING THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT DEFINITIVE MEASURES . HOWEVER, THE POWER OF DECISION BELONGS TO THE COUNCIL, WHICH MAY REFRAIN FROM TAKING ANY DECISION AT ALL IF IT DISAGREES WITH THE COMMISSION OR MAY, ON THE CONTRARY, ADOPT A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE LATTER ' S PROPOSALS .
CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSION .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS :
( 1 ) THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSION . ( 2)THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY THE COSTS OCCASIONED BY THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY RAISED BY THE COMMISSION IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE . LUXEMBOURG, 15 OCTOBER 1986 .