Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council

(Case T‑596/11)

‛Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — No individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Exclusive importer not associated with the exporter and not being the main importer or final user of the product — Other criteria to be taken into consideration (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 23-34, 39-48, 55, 58)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 64-75)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Bricmate AB is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

4. Cerame-Unie AISBL, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl are ordered to bear their own costs.

Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council

(Case T‑596/11)

‛Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — No individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Exclusive importer not associated with the exporter and not being the main importer or final user of the product — Other criteria to be taken into consideration (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 23-34, 39-48, 55, 58)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 64-75)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Bricmate AB is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.