Case C‑511/13 P

Philips Lighting Poland S.A.

and

Philips Lighting BV

v

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) — Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 — Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines — Injury to the Community industry — Major proportion of the total Community production of the like products’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 8 September 2015

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Notion of Community industry — Collective output of producers constituting a major proportion — Meaning — Interpretation in the light of the 1994 GATT Anti-dumping Agreement — Reference to the minimum threshold of 25% referred to in Article 5(4) of Regulation No 384/96

(Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement’; Council Regulation No 384/96, Recitals 1 to 3 and 5)

EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Interpretation in the light of the international agreements concluded by the Union — Interpretation of Regulation No 384/96 in the light of the 1994 GATT Anti-dumping Agreement — Concept of Community industry

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Review procedure — Investigation — Obligation on the Commission to bring an end to proceedings once the degree of support for a complaint has fallen below the minimum threshold of 50% of Community production — No such obligation

Although there is no provision in Basic Anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 as regards the measures to be taken by the Commission, during the course of an investigation, if the support of the producers for the complaint or request for a review falls, it follows, a fortiori, from Article 9(1) of that regulation that the EU institutions are entitled to continue the review procedure notwithstanding the fact that it was possible that the 50% threshold referred to in Article 5(4) of the regulation is no longer met. Since, in the case where a complaint or request for a review is withdrawn, the EU institutions concerned may, by virtue of Articles 9(1) and 11(5) of Basic Anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96, continue with the investigation, that must apply a fortiori when the degree of support for a complaint or request for a review merely falls. Therefore, a fall in the Community producers’ support for a complaint or a request for a review is not such as to lead necessarily to the termination of the investigation, even if such a fall implies that that support corresponds to a level of production which is below one of the two thresholds laid down in Article 5(4) of Basic Anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96. Such an interpretation is all the more appropriate since, during the investigation, the positions of the representatives of the Community industry may change in opposite directions. Such variations cannot impede the proper conduct of the investigation at issue. (see paras 51-55)

EU legal acts must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where they are intended specifically to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Union. In that regard, it follows from recitals 1 to 3 and 5 of Basic Anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 that the concept of ‘Community industry’, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that regulation, has to be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article VI of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Anti-dumping Agreement). (see paras 60, 61)