Case C-404/01 P(R): Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping legislation, electrometallurgy, import

C 331/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.11.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of
the Council of 6 October 1997
amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
or,
in any event, by failing to have informed the
Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-
ive provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 3(1) of the Directive,

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

— set aside the order of the President of the Court of
First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R
Euroalliages and Others v Commission;

— dismiss the application for interim measures in Case

T-132/01 R; and

— order the applicants to pay the costs occasioned by this
appeal, as well as by the application for interim relief and
the application to amend the order of 1 August 2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain was
obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the
requirements of the Directive by 23 April 2000 at the latest
and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. However,
the Kingdom of Spain has not complied with those obligations,
since it has failed to take the measures necessary to incorporate
the Directive into the Spanish legal system.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18 .
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.

Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the order made on
1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R
between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Var-
gon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of
the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The order misconstrued Article 3(1) of Council Regula-
tion(EC) No 384/96 (1) in finding that‘ the term “material”
can only be understood as a synonym for “serious”’. There
is nothing in that Regulation to support the conclusion
that a ‘material’ injury within the meaning of Article 3 of
the Regulation is the same as the ‘serious’ damage which
must be established for the purposes of an application
for interim measures.

— The order failed to have regard to the case-law on
exceptional circumstances in finding that the circum-
stances of this case justified departing from settled case-
law.

— The order failed to have regard to the case-law in
characterising the damage possibly suffered by the appli-
cants as ‘irreparable’.

(Case C-404/01 P(R))

(Alternatively)

(2001/C 331/27)

— In balancing the interests at stake, the contested order:

An appeal against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the
President of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages,
Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlan-
tica, and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 (by fax received on
11.10.01) by the Commission of the European Communities
represented by V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, acting as Agents,
and P. Bentley, Barrister, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

adopts inconsistent reasoning in finding that the regis-
tration of imports without requiring importers to deposit
guarantees would not create an irreversible situation,
whereas registration with the deposit of guarantees would
do so; and

misinterprets Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
(which implements the Community’s obligations under
Article 7 of the GATT agreement on anti-dumping) in
concluding that the registration of imports would not
have the same effect as anti-dumping measures.

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/17

(Alternatively)

— In its operative part, the order failed to have regard to:

(1)

the principle, in Article 7(1) of Regulation 384/96,
which states that provisional anti-dumping duties
are to be imposed no earlier than 60 days from the
initiation of proceedings; and

(2)

the principle, in Article 7(7) and Article 14(5) of

Regulation (EC) No 384/96, that provisional anti-
dumping measures (and in particular, measures
requiring registration) may not last for more than
nine months.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).