Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 May 2022 –

Eurobolt and Others v Commission

(Case T‑479/20) ( 1 )

(Dumping – Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia – Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice – Article 266 TFEU – Re-imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty – Non-retroactivity – Effective judicial protection – Principle of good administration – Competence of the author of the act)

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid with the aim of re-imposing anti-dumping duties – Whether permissible – Conditions – Breach of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity – None (Art. 266 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 10(1) and 15(2)) (see paras 40-61, 67-77, 84-91)

2. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Discretion of the institutions – Scope – Judicial review – Limits (Art. 266 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036) (see paras 96-99)

3. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Reimposition of the anti-dumping duties on importations made during the application period of the invalidated regulations – Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of effective judicial protection – None) (Art. 266 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, first para.; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art.15(2)) (see paras 105-112)

4. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation No 1225/2009 – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Regulation seeking to implement a declaration of invalidity – Adoption of that regulation on the basis of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation 2016/1036 – Whether permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 13(1) and 14(1)) (see paras 123-128)

5. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Circumvention – Extension of anti-dumping duty – Adoption, after expiry of the anti-dumping duty, of a regulation extending that duty retroactively – Whether permissible – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 13(1) and (3) and 14(1) and (5); Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 13(1) and (3) and 14(1) and (5)) (see paras 129-134)

6. International agreements – Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation – GATT 1994 – Not possible to invoke WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU measure – Exceptions – EU measure intended to ensure its implementation or referring thereto expressly and precisely – None (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994, Art. VI; Council Regulations No 91/2009 and No 924/2012; Commission Regulation 2015/519) (see paras 140-150)

7. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Regulation ordering national authorities to suspend the repayment of the anti-dumping duties concerned – Whether permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 161-168)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV and Stafa Group BV to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.