COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 541 f mal 
Brussels, 4 November 1993 
§«-.. 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
on the Introduction of time limits for Investigations carried out 
under the Community Instruments of commercial defence 
and 
modification of the relevant Council Regulations 
(presented by the Commission) 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. INTRODUCTION 
The effectiveness of the Community's instruments of commercial 
defence has been a major preoccupation in the Community for some 
time, particularly In view of the liberalization of trade due to 
the creation of the single market and the further push in this 
direction from the Uruguay Round. In June 1992, the Commission 
addressed part of this problem in its proposal on decision-making 
procedures*1) which is still before the Council. There is, 
however, another aspect of the overall problem which remains to be 
addressed, i.e. the excessive duration of anti-dumping and anti-
subsidy investigations which has provoked criticisms from the 
European Parliament, Member States, Community industries, importers 
and exporters, which have all condemned the length of these 
Community investigations. Excessive time delays cause uncertainty 
in the market place, reduce the chances that measures, once taken, 
have the desired effect, and contribute to the creation of a lack 
of confidence in the effectiveness of Community commercial policy. 
Thus, to maintain the credibility of this aspect of commercial 
defence It is necessary to propose corrective action to improve 
efficiency. For the same reasons, it is also appropriate to 
propose the same corrective action to improve efficiency of 
safeguard action*2). 
In addition to the above-mentioned proposal on decision-making 
there is another proposal to modify Council Regulation (EEC) No 
288/82 which Is also before the Council*3). It should be noted 
that nothing in the existing proposal conflicts with those already 
(1) Commission proposal of 30.6.92, SEC(92) 1097 FINAL 
(2) Council Reg.(EEC) No 288/82 of 5.2.82, OJ No L35 of 9.2.82 
(3) Commission proposal of 18.9.93, C0M(92), 374 FINAL 
/ItL 
before the Council. It should be underlined that the latter are 
maintained and that the Commission considers their adoption as 
essential for an effective commercial defence. The present 
proposal has been drafted In such a manner that it is compatible 
with the existing legislation and complements the proposals already 
before the Council on decision-making. The common purpose of all 
these proposals is to improve the credibility of the Community's 
trade policy. 
2. THE PRESENT SITUATION - ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY 
At present, investigations frequently take up to 18 months in the 
Community between the initiation and the provisional determination, 
which is nearly twice the time taken by, for example, the United 
States. Annex A sets out the actual time limits in force in the 
United States and, by way of comparison, it also outlines the 
proposed time limits for the EC and the time taken at present to 
complete these cases. 
The short duration in the United States is due to several reasons. 
First, the scope of their investigations is more limited in that 
they neither apply a public interest test nor a "lesser duty rule", 
i.e. they automatically apply the full margin of dumping as a duty 
rather than investigating whether a lower amount would suffice. 
Furthermore, they have a simple decision-making process and they 
operate in one language, a situation which is also true for Canada 
and Austral la. 
However, the main reason for the short duration is that these 
countries operate mandatory legal time limits*4) which they are 
able to apply because they have allocated sufficient resources to 
the problem. In this respect, the United States, employs 
approximately 5 times the number of staff for roughly the same 
number of investigations as the EC and Canada 3 times the number 
of staff for one third the number of investigations in the EC. 
Moreover, they employ staff specifically qualified for this work 
which requires auditing or accounting experience if it is to be 
carried out effectively. 
(4) approximately 25 days to accept or reject a complaint and 6 months 
on average from initiation to provisional determination. 
\ 3. THE PROPOSED SOLUTION AND PRECONDITIONS 
a) Solution for Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy 
Certain of the differences between the EC and US systems outlined 
above will, of course, always remain. Therefore, the most feasible 
solution is the introduction of mandatory time limits based on the 
practice of our major trading partners but adapted to the 
peculiarities of the EC. Thus, the appropriate time limits for 
the EC would be : 
- a maximum 1 month from receipt of complaint to initiation or 
rejection of complaint; 
- a maximum 9 months between initiation of investigation and 
provisional measures***). 
a maximum 15 months between initiation of investigation and 
definitive conclusion. 
b) Solution for Safeguard Action 
As far as safeguard measures under Regulation No 288/82 and other 
similar instruments are concerned, the limited number of 
investigations carried out by the Commission has not given rise, so 
far, to a problem of the same magnitude as that concerning anti­
dumping or anti-subsidy actions. Nevertheless, delays have 
occurred in certain cases. It would appear appropriate, therefore, 
to introduce the same changes for safeguard action as is proposed 
for anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations. 
(5) The Commission understands the wish of European industry to have 
shorter time limits than those indicated in the present proposal. 
The Commission is prepared to propose to reduce these time limits 
further provided it is assured of having the means to carry out 
reduced delays. The Commission will undertake a review of the 
duration of these time limits within 2 years after their entry into 
force with a view to reducing them further. 
In addition, in order to Introduce a more democratic and 
transparent system, it appears necessary to confer on Community 
industries the right to lodge complaints for safeguard measures in 
the same manner as for antI-dumping and anti-subsidy cases. 
c) Preconditions 
For the imposition of time limits it is Imperative that strict, 
sufficiently short and legally binding deadlines be set for the 
Community Institutions concerned and the other participants in such 
procedures i.e. for the Community industry, exporters, importers, 
users and consumer organizations. The same must apply for written 
or oral consultations of Member States. The imposition of such 
deadlines will only be realistic if: 
- Investigations of dumping and Injury/Community interest would 
have to be carried out separately and In parallel. This would 
also increase the transparency and objectivity of these 
Investigations, as well as Improve the quality of the work 
carried out in these investigations which, as is well known, is 
under strict scrutiny by GATT panels and the European Court. 
- Clarifications are made to existing provisions. A more 
systematic use of sampling would have to be made where there 
are a large number of parties involved in the investigation. 
Moreover, the consequences of non-cooperation by interested 
parties have to be clarified. 
- Staffing Is Increased. In this respect, it has to be borne in 
mind that the changes envisaged will lead to a considerably 
increased workload for a staff which is already stretched to 
breaking point. Moreover, adequate staff levels are essential 
to implement the reform given the implications of failing to 
meet the time limits where the legal right to continue the 
investigations would fail and the institutions would be exposed 
to serious legal consequences under Article 215 of The Treaty. 
Indeed, since the quantity of work will not diminish but 
increase following Uruguay and liberalization vis-à-vis PECOs 
and the CIS*6), then it is clear that more personnel is needed 
if the same work has to be done in a shorter period of time. 
The additional staff required to implement time limits and the 
other changes outlined has been calculated in relation to the 
number of investigating staff needed. The methodology used to 
calculate this figure is set out in ANNEX B which shows a 
requirement for 146 investigators, an increase which naturally 
generates an increased hierarchy, policy and supporting staff 
requirement. The total existing staff and the additional staff 
required to implement changes are set out in ANNEX C. The 
calculations are based on the average of 56 new investigations 
per year*7). The staff required to carry out a deadlines 
based system, involving a 50% reduction in the duration of 
investigations for these new cases, means that more work has to 
be done in a shorter time, and thus extra staff is required. 
This requirement to carry out work in a shorter time is 
continuous, as is the influx of new cases. The consequence of 
the new system will be a gradual reduction in the number of 
cases in progress at any given time but, given the deadlines, 
an increased workload at any point in time. Therefore, the 
result will not lead to unused resources but will stop the 
tendency towards ever-increasing periods of time necessary for 
completion of cases. Finally, in this respect, it should be 
understood that no margin of security has been incorporated 
into the staffing figures for increases in case numbers, which 
will certainly happen due to the liberalization of the internal 
market and the further push in this direction resulting from 
the Uruguay Round and the PECOS/CIS negotiations. 
(6) For example the elimination of quantitative restrictions, granting 
of market economy status, etc. 
(7) This figure should not be confused with the number of 
investigations in progress at any given time - SEE ANNEX D WHICH 
SETS OUT THE NUMBER OF NEW CASES INITIATED AND INVESTIGATIONS IN 
PROGRESS FOR THE PERIOD 1981 - 1992. 
Member States play their role in, firstly, explaining to 
interested parties how Community legislation operates and, 
secondly, in ensuring a more effective enforcement of measures 
once they are imposed. 
The extra staff required for this purpose is treated as being 
additional to other requirements of the Commission. 
The figures set out in Annex C Include provision for the 
transformation of 23 national expert posts into permanent 
posts. This is necessary because of the time required for 
training and the short duration of contracts which has made 
national expert staffing particularly unsuited to working under 
a deadlines-based approach. 
Annex C also specifies that there will be a requirement for an 
additional translator in each language given that translations 
will have to be made under tight deadlines. 
The recruitment of the necessary staff takes place In tandem 
with the implementation of time limits. In this respect, the 
calendar for recruitment, the method of recruitment, the 
budgetary implications and the timing of the introduction of 
time limits and other changes are addressed in paragraph 4 
below. 
The budgets for training and computerization, as well as 
missions, are increased. The need for increased spending on 
training and computerization is self-evident. With regard to 
missions, the split of dumping and injury investigations would 
result in more missions which would have to be compressed 
within legally binding time limits. 
Finally, this occasion should be used to give users and consumers a 
greater input into the whole process. They have been pressing for 
years to obtain interested party status in these investigations, a 
demand which was even pursued, unsuccessfully, before the European 
Court of Justice. The Commission should now accommodate them in 
order to increase the transparency in this important area of trade 
poIi cy. 
4- Timetable for Action 
a) Calendar for recruitment of additional staff 
Assuming the Council approves the Commission's proposal on the 
implementation of deadlines by the end of 1993, it should be 
borne in mind that it will take some time to put the necessary 
administrative structure into place, and that it is imperative 
that the implementation of time limits and the recruitment of 
staff be accomplished in tandem. In this respect, it has to be 
borne in mind that the Edinburgh Summit imposed strict 
budgetary ceilings until 1995 and, consequently, a realistic 
timetable for supplying the necessary statutory staff would be 
10 posts in 1994, 59 in 1995 and the remaining 59 in 1996*8). 
b) External Recruitment of qualified personnel 
Apart from legal and economic specialists who are available in 
house or as a result of general open competitions, this type of 
work requires staff with auditing or accounting experience. 
Accountants or auditors, in the numbers required, are Just not 
available from within the Commission and, therefore, 
redeployment cannot work. Thus, special external competitions 
may have to be organised, early in 1994, to recruit the 
suitably qualified personnel. 
(8) For non-statutory staff, the figures are 14 in 1995 and 6 in 1996, 
c) Implementation of time limits 
Given the above timetable on staff recruitment, the most 
realistic date for entry into effect of time limits with 
respect to new cases (as opposed to pending cases or reviews) 
would be 1.4.1995. 
It can be expected that all cases, including reviews, would be 
subject to the "new system from 1.7.1996, when the full 
administrative structure will be In place. 
d) The budgetary implications of the above are set out in the 
attached "fiche financière". 
>* 5. CONCLUSION 
To achieve the above and in order to meet the preoccupations 
frequently expressed by the European Parliament, Member States and 
the Community industry, the Commission herewith submits to the 
Counc iI : 
- a proposal to amend the Community's basic anti-dumping and 
anti-subsidy and safeguard legislation. 
This proposal is principally aimed at: 
a) incorporating time limits, 
b) providing a basis for sampling where there are a large 
number of parties involved and clarifying the provisions 
with regard to interested parties and the treatment of non 
or partial cooperators; and 
c) permitting the imposition of provisional measures for a 
full 6 months rather than the current situation where they 
are first imposed for 4 months and then, if necessary, 
extended for a further two months by the Council; and 
d) conferring on Community industries the right to lodge 
safeguard complaints. 
10 
The above proposai is made, of course, on the assumption that the 
necessary financial resources are provided by the Council for the 
budgetary years 1995 and 1996. In effect, the credibility of the 
Community vis-à-vis its own industries and third countries is 
involved in this policy. Therefore, every effort must be made to 
achieve the above objectives, including the question of additional 
resources. If these are not forthcoming, the Commission would have 
to reconsider its position. 
ANNEX A 
(Explan. Memo) 
ANTI-DUMPING - US TIME LIMITS 
Adequacy of complaint 
Prel. injury finding 
Pre I. dumping finding 
Final dumping finding 
Final injury finding 20 days after it is lodged 
45 days after it is lodged 
160 days after it is lodged 
(210 in complex cases) 
75 days after prel. dump, finding 
(135 in complex cases) 
45 days after final dump, finding 
investigations may be finished in a period ranging from a minimum of 280 
days for simple cases or a maximum of 390 days in complex cases. 
PROPOSED TIME LIMITS FOR EC 
Adequacy of complaint 1 month 
Prel. dumping and injury finding 9 months 
Final dumping and injury finding 15 months 
THE TIME TAKEN AT PRESENT IN EC 
Adequacy of complaint 
Prel. dumping and injury finding 
Final dumping and injury finding 2- 3 months 
15-18 months 
21-24 months 
/M 
ANNEX B 
Ant I-dumping and ant I-subsidy -
Calculation of number of Investigators 
DUMP ING 
investigators would work in teams of two and would not be 
involved in more than two cases at the same time; 
56 cases are on-going at any one time, 13 of which are 
complicated, 25 of which are normal and 18 of which are simple-, 
two teams of two officials would work on each complicated case, 
though the second team would also have to do a simple case at the 
same time, i.e accounting for 26 cases and 26 teams or 52 
investigators; 
for the remaining 30 cases (5 simple and 25 normal), 1 team of 
two would work on 2 cases at the same time, i.e 15 teams of 2 
investigators or 30 investigators; 
the above would give a total requirement of 82 Investigators. 
INJURY 
investigators would work in teams of two and would not be 
involved in more than two cases at the same time; 
48 cases are on-going at any one time, 8 of which are 
complicated, 27 which are normal and 13 of which are simple; 
two teams of two officials would work on each complicated case, 
though the second team would also have to do a simple case at the 
same time, i.e accounting for 16 cases and 16 teams or 32 
investigators. 
for the remaining 32 cases, 1 team of two would work on 2 cases 
at the same time, i.e 16 teams of 2 investigators or 32 
investigators; 
the above would give a total requirement of 64 investigators. 
41 
ANNEX C 
(Explan. Memo.) 
The Existing and Additional Staff Required to Implement Changes 
DG1 Existing Additional 
1. A Grade (stat) 32 57 
2. B Grade (stat) 22 42 
3. C Grade (stat) 18 20 
Sub-Total 
4. A Grade (stat. temp) 72 
13 109 (new posts of which 55 
in 1995, and 54 in 
1996) 
10*D 
5. National Experts and 
replacements 
6. C Grade (non-stat) 23*2) 23*3) 
11 17*4) 
Translation Service 
7. LA Grade (stat) 
8. C Grade (non-stat) 9 (new posts) 
3*4) 
(1) To be supplied from existing resources. 
(2) These are national experts to be replaced by permanent staff. 
(3) These are statutory replacements for national experts achieved 
through a transfer of employment credits. 
(4) These are non-statutory staff which will require supplementary 
credits. 
Ji 
ANTI-OUPINO ANO ANTI-SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIONS OURINQ THE PERICO 1981 - 1992 ANNEX 0 
(EXPLAN/MEM) 
l 1 1 1 
1990 I 1991 I 1992 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 
Investigations In progress ot 
the beginning of the period 
Investigations Inltloted 
during the period 29 
46 46 
58 53 
38 33 
49 40 
36 24 21 
39 39 
40 53 
27 60 
43 59 
20 46 
39 
Investigations In progress 
during the period 77 104 82 76 68 60 79 80 103 79 85 
Investigations concluded by : 
- Imposition of definitive 
duty 
- occeptonce of price 
undertaking 
- determination of no dimplng 
- determination of no 
subsldlsatIon 
- determination of no Injury 
- other reasons 10 
7 
7 35 
3 20 
27 18 10 
27 
6 4 
2 
1 
15 
2 25 
4 18 
13 
5 19 
3 
1 16 
Total Investigations 
concluded during the period 31 51 58 42 32 47 21 26 20 45 33 28 
Investigations In progress 
at the end of the period 46 53 33 40 44 21 39 53 60 
Provltlonol duties Imposed 
during the period 18 22 11 28 10 58 
23 46 
19 
J L 57 
18 
REVIEWS Of ANTI-OUPINO AND ANT I-SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIONS DURING 1981 - 1992 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
1987 I 1988 I 1989 ANNEX 
(EXPLAN D 
.MEM) 
1981 1 1 
1982 I 1983 1984 1985 1986 1990 1991 1992 
Reviews In progress ot the 
beginning of the period 
Reviews opened during the 
period 16 
24 24 
10 2 
30 20 
24 27 
8 11 
24 20 
17 15 
26 21 
16 21 
27 
Reviews In progress during 
the period 18 40 34 32 44 35 35 37 41 37 48 
Reviews concluded by : 
- ImpoaltIon of de/InltIve 
duty In I leu of price 
undertaking 
- omendment of definitive 
duty 
- suspension of definitive 
duty 
- occeptonce of price 
undertoklng In I leu of 
defInltlve duty 
- amendment of price 
undertoklng 
- repeal or explry of 
defInltlve duty 
- repeol or expiry of price 
undertoklng 
- repeal of regional duty 
- no change of the measures 
In force 11 
13 11 
Total reviews terminated 
during the period 16 32 12 17 24 15 22 20 15 
Reviews In progress at the 
end of the period 16 24 20 27 11 20 15 21 22 30 
Provisional duties Imposed 
during the reviews 13 
J l J L 
y> 
PROPOSAL FOR 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 
On the introduction of time limits for investigations carried out under 
the Community instruments of commercial defence and modification of the 
relevant Council Regulations 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, 
Whereas the common commercial policy must be based on uniform 
principles, notably with regard to commercial defence, 
Whereas instruments of commercial defence, in particular in respect of 
unfair trade practices, are an indispensable complement to an open 
market and fair trading system, thus contributing to the harmonious 
development of world trade, 
/( 
Whereas, to this end, the following two Community instruments were 
established, inter alia: 
Council regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 19881), on 
protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not 
members of the European Economic Community, 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 of 5 February 19822), on common 
rules for imports (as last amended^)) 
1) OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p.1 
2) OJ No L 35, 9.2.1982, p.1 
3) OJ No L 284, 12.10.1991, p.1 '"? 
- 3 
Whereas the completion of the single market in 1992 makes it appropriate 
to improve the functioning of these instruments of commercial datcncï, 
in particular in respect of the length of the Investigations carried 
out under these Instruments, 
Whereas it is, therefore, appropriate and necessary to introduce time 
Hmits for procedures carried out under the above-mentioned Regulations, 
Whereas for complaints lodged against dumped or subsidized imports ii is 
necessary to set time limits for the initiation of investigations and 
for the provisional and final determinations; whereas it is also 
appropriate to ensure that final decisions, either positive or negative, 
are taken quickly to ensure compliance with international obligations, 
Whereas in order that the time limits can be respected, it is essential 
to provide for sampling where there are a large number of parties 
involved in an investigation, to clarify the periods within which views 
and information have to be submitted to the Commission in order for them 
to be taken into account in the investigation, to define more precisely 
the parties which may inspect Information available to the Commission 
and may request to be informed of the essential facts on the basis of 
which definitive measures are to be proposed and to clarify the 
consequences of partial or non-cooperation by these parties, 
Whereas it is also essential to ensure that consultations with Member 
States within the Advisory Committee are held in sufficient time to 
allow the time limits to be respected, 
n 
- 4 -
Whereas it is also appropriate to simplify procedures by providing that 
provisional duties can be imposed for a full six month period rather 
than for an initial four month period which may then be extended for a 
further two months, 
Whereas, review investigations should also be completed expeditiously, 
Whereas, for Community surveillance and protective measures it is also 
necessary to set time limits for the initiation of investigations and 
for determinations as to whether, or not, measures are appropriate, with 
a view to ensuring that such determinations are made quickly, in order 
to increase legal certainty for the economic operators concerned, 
Whereas, in addition, in order to introduce a more accessible and 
transparent system, it appears necessary to confer on Community 
industries the right to lodge complaints for safeguard measures in the 
same manner as for anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases, 
Whereas, In addition, it is imperative to link the implementation of 
this Regulation to the establishment of the necessary administrative 
structure within the Commission's services; whereas, the Council, 
therefore, should specify in a decision to be adopted in accordance with 
Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, the complaints, proceedings and 
investigations to which this Regulation will apply. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
11 
TITLE I 
Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 
Article 1 
1. Article 2, paragraph 13, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 is 
ret it led "G Averaging Techniques" and the third indent is deleted. 
2. The following sentence is added to Article 5, paragraph 3: 
"A complaint shall be deemed to have been lodged on the first 
worlcing day following its delivery to the Commission by registered 
mail or the issuing of an acknowledgement of receipt by the 
Commission." 
3. The following text is added to Article 5, paragraph 5 in fine: 
"within 1 month of the date on which the complaint is lodged with 
the Commission." 
4. "The following text is added to Article 6, paragraph 1 in fine: 
"within a time frame which allows the time limits set by the present 
Regulation to be respected." 
6. The words "or to request an oral consultation" are deleted from the 
end of Article 6, paragraph 3 in fine: 
lo 
- 6 -
6. The word "immediately" In the first sentence of Article 7, paragraph 
1 is deleted and Article 7, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) is 
amended to read as follows: 
"Initiate a proceeding within one month of the lodging of the 
complaint and publish a notice in the Official Journal of the 
European Communities; such notice shall indicate the product and 
countries concerned, give a summary of the information received, and 
provide that all relevant information is to be communicated to the 
Commission; it shall state the periods within which interested 
parties may make their views known in writing and submit information 
if such views and information are to be taken into account during 
the investigation; it shall also state the period within which 
interested parties may apply to be heard orally by the Commission in 
accordance with paragraph 5 of this Article." 
7. The following sub-paragraph (c) is added to Article 7, paragraph 2 : 
"Where there are a large number of parties involved, the 
investigation may be limited to a sample of the parties, products or 
transactions which can be investigated in the time available." 
ii 
- 7 -
8. The text "The complainant and the importers and exporters" at the 
beginning of Article 7, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (a) is deleted 
and replaced by the following: 
"The complainants, importers, exporters, users and consumer 
organisations" 
9. Article 7, paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (b) is amended to read as 
fol lows: 
"In cases in which any interested party or third country refuses 
access to, or otherwise does not provide, necessary information 
within the time limits set by this Regulation or by the Commission 
under this Regulation, or significantly impedes the investigation, 
preliminary or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made 
on the basis of the facts available. Where the Commission finds 
that any interested party or third country has supplied it with 
false or misleading information, it may make use of facts available 
in place of such information. 
10. Article 7, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (a) is amended to read as 
fol lows: 
"Investigations should normally be concluded within one year. In 
any event, an investigation shall be concluded within 15 months 
from its initiation either by its termination pursuant to Article 9 
or by definitive action pursuant to Article 12." 
ii 
- 8 -
11. The following text is added to the first sentence of Article 11, 
paragraph 1 : 
"no later than 9 months from the initiation of the investigation" 
12. Article 11, paragraph 5, is amended to read as follows: 
"Provisional duties shall have a maximum period of validity of four 
months. However, where exporters representing a significant 
percentage of the trade involved so request or do not object upon 
notification by the Commission, provisional anti-dumping duties may 
have a period of validity of six months." 
13. The following sentence is added to Article 14. paragraph 2: 
"Review investigations shall normally be completed no later than 15 
months from the date of the initiation of the review." 
<u 
f / 
- 9 -
TITLE II 
Community surveillance and protective measures 
Article 2 
1. The following paragraphs are added to Article 3 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 : 
"2. Under the same circumstances a written complaint may be lodged 
with the Commission by any natural or legal person, or any 
association not having legal personality, acting on behalf of a 
Community industry which considers itself injured or threatened 
by such imports. This complaint shall contain the evidence 
referred to in paragraph 1 above. The Commission shall inform 
the Member States of such complaint forthwith. 
3. A complaint shall be deemed to have been lodged on the first 
working day following its delivery to the Commission by 
registered mail or the Issuing of an acknowledgement of receipt 
by the Commission. 
4. For the purposes of this Regulation a Community industry means 
the producers as a whole of the like or directly competitive 
products to the imported products operating within the 
territory of the Community, or those whose collective output of 
the like or directly competitive products constitute a major 
proportion of the total Community production of those products. 
In case of a complaint concerning only one or more regions of 
the Community, the industry concerned shall be identified in the 
same manner as described above, but in relation to the region or 
regions concerned. 
?4 
10 -
2. Article 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 288/82 is amended to read as follows : 
"Initiate an investigation within one month of the receipt of an 
information by a Member State or the lodging of a complaint by a 
Community industry and publish a notice in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities; such notice shall give a summary of the 
information received, and provide that all relevant information is 
to be communicated to the Commission; it shall state the period 
within which interested parties may make known their views in 
writing and submit information, if such views and information are to 
be taken into account during the investigation; it shall also state 
the period within which interested parties may apply to be heard 
orally by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 4 of this 
Article;" 
3. The following text Is added to Article 6, paragraph 2 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 : 
"The complainant, importers, exporters and users and consumer 
organizations known to be concerned, as well as the representatives 
of the exporting country, may inspect all information made available 
to the Commission by any party to an investigation, as distinct from 
internal documents prepared by the authorities of the Community or 
its Member States, provided that it is relevant to the defence of 
their interests and not confidential within the meaning of Article 8 
and that it is used by the Commission in the investigation. To this 
end, they shall address a written request to the Commission 
indicating the information required." 
^5T 
- 11 -
4. Article 6, paragraph 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 Is 
amended to read as follows : 
"Where information. is not supplied within the time limits set by 
this Regulation or by the Commission under this Regulation, or the 
investigation is significantly impeded, findings may be made on the 
basis of the facts available. Where the Commission finds that any 
interested party or third country has supplied it with false or 
misleading information, it may make use of facts available in place 
of such information." 
5. The following paragraph is inserted after Article 6, paragraph 5 of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 : 
"5b is Where it becomes apparent, after consultations, that the 
complaint lodged by a Community industry does not provide 
sufficient evidence to Justify initiating an investigation, 
then the Commission shall, within one month of the date on 
which the complaint is lodged, decide to reject the 
complaint. The complainant shall be informed accordingly." 
6. Article 7, paragraph 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 is 
amended to read as follows : 
"Where no Community surveillance or protective measures have been 
taken within nine months of the initiation of the investigation, the 
investigation shall be terminated, after consulting the Committee, 
within one month and the decision published in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities, stating the main conclusions of the 
investigation and a summary of the reasons therefor." 
2£ 
- 12 
7. The following text Is added to Article 7, paragraph 3, in fine, of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 : 
"No later than nine months from the initiation of the investigation. 
In exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be extended by a 
further maximum period of two months; the Commission shall then 
publish a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities 
setting forth the duration of the extension and a summary of the 
reasons therefor." 
?"? 
- 13 -
TITLE III 
Article 3 
The present Regulation shall enter into force on the third day 
following its publication in the Official Journal of the European 
Communities. It shall, however, only apply to complaints lodged, 
proceedings initiated and review investigations initiated after 
dates which the Council shall specify in a decision adopted in 
accordance with Article 113 of the Treaty. 
?* 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 541 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-588-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-60729-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-??35 Lïtxemboure