Case C‑145/17 P

Internacional de Productos Metálicos SA

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia — Infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concluded in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Repeal of definitive anti-dumping duties already collected — Non-retroactive effect — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Person individually concerned — Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2018

Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties — Action by an importer of goods having been subject to the anti-dumping measures concerned — Not individually concerned

As regards an action for annulment brought by an individual against a measure to whom it is not addressed, where the contested measure affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons may nevertheless be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of economic operators and that can be the case particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by the individual prior to its adoption. That is not the case for an action brought by an importer of the products covered by that measure against a regulation repealing anti-dumping duties. Since the anti-dumping duties repealed by the regulation at issue affect only importers of the products specifically covered by those measures, that regulation affects the applicant only in its objective capacity as an importer of products which were the subject of the anti-dumping measures concerned, without taking into account its individual situation. In particular, it cannot be argued that the condition of being individually concerned is met when it is an objective situation that is affected. Being subject to anti-dumping measures cannot validly be regarded as constituting a right acquired by the applicant prior to the adoption of the regulation at issue. (see paras 36-38, 40)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 49-54)

The fact that a regulatory act of the European Union entails implementing measures, within the meaning of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, so that certain legal effects of the act only materialise through those measures, does not exclude the possibility of that act producing, on the legal situation of a natural or legal person, other legal effects, which do not depend on the adoption of implementing measures. Thus, as regards an action brought against a regulation repealing anti-dumping duties, although it is true that the repeal of the anti-dumping duties does not depend, as such, on the adoption of implementing measures for those duties to expire, the fact remains that that regulation, in so far as it provides for the expiry of those duties from the date of its entry into force and excludes any retroactive effect, can materialise, as regards an applicant importer of the goods covered by that regulation, only through measures taken by the national authorities for the purpose of collecting the anti-dumping duties in question before that date. In that regard, where an importer believes itself to have been adversely affected by that regulation, it may plead the unlawfulness of that regulation before the competent national court. That court may, and possibly must, then, under the conditions of Article 267 TFEU, refer a question to the Court of Justice concerning the validity of the regulation in question. (see paras 56, 57, 61)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 59)