Case T-217/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
Date: 2016-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, customs drawback, import (EU), iron and steel industry, originating product, principle of legal certainty








C_2016251EN.01003801.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/38





Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
(Case T-217/16)
(2016/C 251/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, S.A. (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente, A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


uphold the grounds for annulment put forward and annul Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not;










—


expressly acknowledge that Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, has retroactive effects.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the abovementioned regulation in so far as, notwithstanding the fact that the latter repealed the anti-dumping duties initially imposed on the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia, as a result of the decisions adopted by the relevant WTO authorities, Article 2 of that regulation restricts the possible reimbursement of the duties paid by refusing to make the repeal retroactive, allowing the continued existence in law of anti-dumping duties contrary to the regulatory rules of the WTO, without there being an objective public policy justification for such a decision.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, based on the unlawfulness of Article 2 of the contested regulation, on the ground that it was contrary to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.






—


The applicant submits in that regard that since the Commission itself acknowledges in the contested regulation that the anti-dumping duties have been repealed because of the infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by the Council, the lawfulness of the contested article has to be assessed having regard to the obligations assumed by the European Union in entering into the Anti-Dumping Agreement.










—


In addition, as may be seen from the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the European Union, as a contracting party to that agreement, could only impose anti-dumping duties by observing the procedure laid down in that international agreement. Since the Council infringed several provisions of that agreement when imposing the anti-dumping duties repealed, as is expressly acknowledged in Regulation (EU) 2016/278, the European Union was never entitled to impose the duties repealed, so that the effects of the repeal can in no case be limited.














2.


Second plea in law, based on legal certainty and the principle of unjust enrichment






—


The applicant submits in that regard that the need to acknowledge that the repeal of the anti-dumping duties has retroactive effect stems from the purpose of the regulation in question, since that regulation acknowledges the infringement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by the Council when it imposed the anti-dumping duties.










—


In addition, in the same way as the Court of Justice has required Member States to return those amounts collected in breach of Community law, the same conclusion applies to the amounts collected by the European Union in breach of its own law such as the Anti-Dumping Agreement. To deny that the repeal has retroactive effect would mean that individuals must bear the effects of unlawful conduct without the possibility of any form of remedy for the unlawful damage that they ought never to have sustained.














3.


Third plea in law, based on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations






—


In the applicant’s view, the acknowledgement that the international obligations assumed by the European Union had been infringed, by the imposition of the anti-dumping duties contrary to the Anti-Dumping Agreement, gave rise to well-founded expectations that the Commission would adopt a regulation consistent with the infringement acknowledged by it, without allowing the continued existence of the unlawful effects caused by unlawful anti-dumping duties.