Annual report of the hearing officer for trade proceedings 2022.
Date: 2023-10-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security
Subjects: activity report, commercial arbitration, international standard, trade policy, trade restriction

Annual Report of the Hearing 
Officer for Trade Proceedings
2022

Trade
3

LEGAL NOTICE

© European Union, 2023 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents 
(OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders. 

ISBN 978-92-68-08161-7      ISSN 2529-3311      DOI 10.2781/702430      NG-AK-23-001-EN-N

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Annual Report of the Hearing
Officer for Trade Proceedings
2022

CONTENTS

1. Context and overview .................................................................................................................................................................................................1
2. Evolution of Activities 2022 .................................................................................................................................................................................2
3. Hearings ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
R739/R740 Glass fibre fabrics (GFF) (certain woven and/or stitched) ............................................................................................3
AD681 Superabsorbent polymers ..........................................................................................................................................................................3
R746/R747/R748 Trichloroisocyanuric acid .....................................................................................................................................................3
AD682 Corrosion resistant steels originating in Turkey and Russia .................................................................................................4
AD686 Aluminium Road wheels ..............................................................................................................................................................................4
AD687 Fatty acid originating in Indonesia........................................................................................................................................................4
AD684 Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................................................................................................................5
4. Other interventions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Replies to Intervention requests not leading to a hearing ......................................................................................................................5
Extension of deadlines ..................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Generalised Systems of Preferences + ...............................................................................................................................................................5
Safeguards ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Trade Barriers Regulation ............................................................................................................................................................................................5
Confrontational Hearing requests ..........................................................................................................................................................................5
5. Other activities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Consultation on policy issues ....................................................................................................................................................................................6
Formal Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................................................................................6
Decisions ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Outreach and Training Activities .............................................................................................................................................................................6
Cooperation with the Commission services responsible for investigations .................................................................................6
Transparency .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Parties ‘right to good administration ....................................................................................................................................................................6
Guidance for Interested Parties ...............................................................................................................................................................................7
6. THE ROLE OF THE HEARING OFFICER IN THE LITIGATIONS BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE .................. 7
7. ANNEX ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
8. END NOTES ............................................................................................................................................................................11

SECTION A

1.  CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW

The primary role of the Hearing Officer is to ensure that the rights of defence of interested parties are respected, and thereby 
contribute to the implementation of the rules in trade proceedings in an objective and transparent manner.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates the following: the right of every person (i) ‘to be heard, before any individual 
measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken’, (ii) ‘to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within 
a reasonable time’ and (iii) ‘to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and 
of professionally and business secrecy’.

For parties involved in trade proceedings, more precise rules are contained in particular in the basic Regulations dealing with 
the different types of trade defence instruments, such as the anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards Regulations, or in 
the trade barriers Regulation1. In order to underline the Commission’s commitment to guaranteeing due process in trade 
proceedings and to improving their impartiality, the function of the Hearing Officer was created already in 2007, and their 
Terms of Reference (ToR) confirmed and modernised in 20192. The changes that were introduced in 2019 were based on the 
experience gained by the Hearing Officer over time. The interventions of the Hearing Officer’s should become more effective, 
allowing for adequate follow-up where appropriate. This is in the interest of all parties to a proceeding to safeguard their 
rights of defence, and in the interest of the investigating authority, which is bound by legal deadlines. To this effect, a good 
balance between parties’ rights and the time constraints of the proceeding is essential, especially taking into account the 
new deadlines that were introduced in the ‘modernisation package’ of the Trade Defence Regulations.

The current ToR of the Hearing Officer, which lay down their responsibilities and competencies, were adopted in 2019 and 
cover  10  basic  Trade  Regulations3.  Since  then,  the  ToR  have  remained  unchanged.  One  of  the  basic  Trade  Regulations 
listed in the ToR, namely Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council4, has been replaced by 
Regulation (EU) 2019/712 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 April 20195 concerning fair competition in air 
services, without however affecting the Hearing Officer’s competence in the matter.

In 2020, the European Commission, with Regulation 2020/11736, adopted an amendment to the anti-dumping7 and anti-
subsidy8 basic Regulations on the duration of the period of pre-disclosure to interested parties, which was prolonged from 
three weeks to four weeks. These amendments also did not change the scope of competence of the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer is attached, for administrative purposes, to the Commissioner responsible for trade policy; however, he/
she enjoys independence in performing their duties and shall not take instructions in fulfilling their tasks.

The mentioned Terms of Reference lay down detailed rules on the interventions of the Hearing Officer in all aspects of a 
trade proceeding and throughout all phases of the proceedings. They further lay down the procedure for hearings conducted 
by the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer has been delegated decision-making powers on certain procedural 
issues, such as access to files, extension of deadlines and the confidential nature of a document. At the request of an 
interested party, the Hearing Officer can also examine information that is confidential by nature, and that cannot be disclosed 
to parties, and inform the party whether in the Hearing Officer’s view the information has been correctly reflected in the 
findings of the Services. The Hearing Officer is, in addition, empowered to raise with the Commissioner responsible for trade 
policy and the Director General for Trade, any concerns about the conduct of content of any trade investigation.

The  interventions  of  the  Hearing  Officer  must  be  effective,  allowing  for  adequate  follow-up  where  appropriate.  This  is 
important for all parties to a proceeding to safeguard their rights of defence, and for the investigating authority, which 
is bound by legal deadlines. To this effect, finding a good balance between parties’ rights and the time constraints of the 
proceeding is essential. At the same time, the Hearing Officer is not a part of the investigation process, but their role is to 
ensure that the rights of defence are respected by the Commission services.

1

The main principles laid down in the current ToR are as follows:

 ● The Hearing Officer acts upon request of parties. Such requests for intervention of the Hearing Officer must be submitted 

in good time and expeditiously, so as not to jeopardise the orderly conduct of the proceeding;

 ● Interested parties should therefore request the intervention of the Hearing Officer at the earliest possible time following 

the occurrence of the event justifying such intervention;

 ● Hearings with the Hearing Officer should in principle only take place if the issues could not be settled with the Commission 

services in due course;

 ● Hearing requests should in principle be made within the relevant timeframes set for the procedure – although there may 

be valid reasons for late requests which the Hearing Officer takes into account.

The Hearing Officer will in principle not accept or consider evidence that has not been submitted to the Commission services 
in due course in the proceeding.

While the Hearing Officer continues to assess each request on its own merits, these elements should encourage parties to 
come forward at the right point in time so that their arguments can be properly taken into account and given the appropriate 
follow-up.

The more information is given to parties on how the general principles that determine the exercise of its functions by the 
Hearing Officer are translated into practice, the better they will be able to raise issues of concern to them in an appropriate 
manner.

This report has been drafted in accordance with Article 18(1) of the ToR and contains a summary of the activities in 2022 
and main observations.

2.  EVOLUTION OF ACTIVITIES IN 2022

Historically, the vast majority of intervention requests concerned trade defence proceedings (anti-dumping, anti-subsidy, 
reviews, re-opening of cases). This held true also in 2022. As opposed to earlier years, in 2022, the Hearing Officer was only 
requested to intervene in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings.

The large majority of these requests concerned issues related to objections to the Commission’s determination of facts and 
findings, breaches of the right to be informed, disclosure issues, and extensions of deadlines.

In 2022, compared to years 2020 and 2021, a smaller percentage of all ongoing investigations led to intervention requests 
(13% in 2022; 17% in 2020 and 17.7% in 2021).

The Hearing Officer received altogether 23 such requests in 2022 (not all of them for hearings but also for other types of 
interventions) and held 8 hearings. The Hearing Officer found that the rights of defence of parties had been respected.
Before granting a hearing and in accordance with the ToR, the Hearing Officer, where appropriate, encouraged the parties to 
first address their concerns to the Commission services, if not yet done. 

2

3.  HEARINGS

The  most  prominent  activity  of  the  Hearing  Officer  is  to 
organise  and  chair  hearings  at  the  request  of  interested 
parties. These hearings are organised in a particular way in 
order to maximize the participation of all services involved 

in the decision-making process and to achieve a high degree 
of transparency for the interested parties of a case. In 2022, 
the Commission services have followed the proposals and 
suggestions of the Hearing Officer. 

In view of the relatively small number of hearings in 2022, each case concerned can be addressed individually.

They are listed below in chronological order starting from the first intervention request (please, click on the case number, if 
reading electronically, for more information on the case):

R739/R740 Glass fibre fabrics (GFF) (certain woven and/or 
stitched)

an 

concerned 

proceeding 

anti-circumvention 
This 
investigation,  against  a  Moroccan  producer,  of  measures 
already  in  force  against  GFF  exported  to  the  Union  from 
China and Egypt. In this proceeding, three related exporting 
producers  (China,  Egypt  and  Morocco)  represented  by  one 
law  firm  requested  a  hearing  with  the  Hearing  Officer 
relating to the application Article 18 of the basic Regulation 
(facts available), and a hearing was granted. The exporting 
producers considered that there was a lack of explanation 
justifying the use of facts available and claimed that their 
comments were not considered in a satisfactory manner.

The  Commission  services  explained  that  the  exporting 
producers  had  provided  conflicting  and/or  only  partial 
information over the time-period in question, which led to 
doubts about the start of the production put forward by the 
Moroccan party. In addition, the Commission services noted 
a high number of missing invoice numbers in the sequential 
numbering system submitted by the Moroccan party. Lastly, 
the Commission services explained that the data provided 
contained  unexplained  discrepancies.  As  a  result,  they 
concluded  that  there  was  sufficient  justification  to  apply 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

The  Hearing  Officer  found  that  the  rights  of  defence  had 
been  respected,  and,  in  view  of  the  tight  timelines  of  the 
investigations, she suggested that the Commission services 
should add certain explanations given during the hearing to 
the Regulation.

AD681 Superabsorbent polymers

In  this  proceeding,  one  exporting  producer  requested  an 
intervention  of  the  Hearing  Officer  regarding  an  error 
committed  by  the  Commission  services  in  the  General 
Disclosure Document, and the one-day deadline to comment 
on the second additional disclosure document that had been 
issued. Upon its request, a hearing with the Hearing Officer 
took place.

The  Commission  services  argued  that,  as  far  as  the  error 
in the General Disclosure Document was concerned, it was 
a clerical error, and the changes could not be ‘unexpected’ 
or  ‘new’  to  the  interested  party,  as  the  second  Additional 
Disclosure  Document  came  further  to  the  request  of  the 
party, and the direction of the indicators had not changed.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the overall trends did not 
appear to have been subject to significant change, thus, the 

3

rights of defence of the party had been respected; as to the 
request for an extension of deadlines to submit comments, 
she  observed  that  it  could  not  be  granted  since  it  is  the 
Hearing Officer’s duty to respect the deadline of proceedings 
and the second Additional Disclosure Document took account 
of the party’s comments.

R746/R747/R748 Trichloroisocyanuric acid

Three exporting producers requested the intervention of the 
Hearing  Officer,  in  view  of  obtaining  new  exporter  status, 
and a hearing was granted. The parties raised the following 
objections to the Commission’s determinations and findings 
with respect to:

• 

• 

The  representativity  of  sales’  transactions  in  terms  of 
volume and prices

The application of the law, particularly the application and 
interpretation of article 11(4) of the basic Regulation 

• 

Issues on the disclosure of the dumping calculations.

During the hearing, the Commission services explained that 
the  transactions  to  the  EU  market  were  assessed  both  in 
terms of volume and price and noted that the examination 
made  by  the  Commission  was  based  on  information  at 
TARIC9  level.  These  factors  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
transactions in question could not be considered a reliable 
indicator  of  the  future  export  activity  of  the  parties,  as 
opposed  to  other  situations  with  other  exporters  in  the 
past. The Commission services further explained that they 
had  not  done  a  calculation  of  dumping  and  normal  value 
in this proceeding, as their findings clearly indicated that a 
new exporter status could not be granted to the parties, and 
therefore, the provision of the disclosure as requested by the 
parties was neither possible nor legally required.

The  Hearing  Officer  observed  that  even  though  there  had 
been cases in the past in which a single export transaction 
was  considered  sufficient  and  reasonable,  the  conditions 
in  those  cases  had  been  different,  and  therefore,  not 
comparable.  Furthermore,  as  regards  the  interpretation  of 
Article  11  (4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Hearing  Officer 
explained that it was not in her realm to provide for such 
interpretation. Finally, concerning the disclosure of dumping 
calculations and normal value, the Hearing Officer concluded 
that the Commission services were not obliged to provide 
them to the party, because there were no such documents 
or files generated during the investigation. In conclusion, all 
rights of defence had been respected in this proceeding.

AD682 Corrosion resistant steels originating in Turkey and 
Russia

In  this  proceeding,  the  Hearing  Officer  was  requested  to 
intervene  four  different  times  by  four  different  parties 
(two  exporting  producers,  one  Union  industry  producer 
and  the  Turkish  government).  The  Hearing  Officer  granted 
two hearings to the two different exporting producers. The 
other  parties  were  not  granted  a  hearing  on  the  grounds 
that  their  requests  concerned  the  investigation  during  the 
proceeding,  and  not  their  rights  of  defence.  She  reminded 
the parties that she was not part of the investigation and, 
pursuant to the Terms of Reference of the Hearing Officer, 
she encouraged the parties to firstly address their concerns 
to the Commission services.

At the first hearing that took place before the Hearing Officer, 
the party considered that the application of Article 18(1) of 
the basic Regulation was not appropriate in the case at hand, 
as the company had cooperated to the best of its ability and 
the application of best facts available was unfair.

The  Commission  services  explained  that  the  intention  to 
apply  the  abovementioned  Article  was  already  apparent 
from the wording of the so-called “Article 18 letter” sent to 
them, which concluded that the party provided misleading 
information, thereby impeding the investigation.

The  Hearing  Officer  found  that  no  conclusions  could  be 
reached  at  this  stage,  and  she  invited  the  Commission 
services to reflect on the arguments discussed.

At the second hearing with another exporting producer, the 
party raised claims on the methodology used to calculate 
the normal value in situations where there were no domestic 
sales. In that respect, the Commission services explained the 
relevant methodology used to construct the normal value. 

The  Hearing  Officer  found  that  adequate  explanation  was 
given to the party with regard to the use of the methodology, 
and  therefore,  the  party’s  rights  of  defence  had  not  been 
breached. She noted that the Commission services needed 
to expose all explanations in the Regulation and the party 
had to be informed in due time.

AD686 Aluminium Road wheels

One  exporting  producer  requested  the  intervention  of  the 
Hearing  Officer  following  the  pre-disclosure  made  by  the 
Commission during the investigation.

In  this  respect,  the  Hearing  Officer  granted  a  hearing, 
where  the  exporting  producer  requested  the  disclosure 
of  the  individual  dumping  and  injury  margin,  as  well  as 
the  underlying  calculations.  The  party  also  asked  for  an 
extension  of  the  deadline  of  three  days  to  comment  on 
the  pre-disclosure.  The  Commission  services  explained 
that  individual  dumping  and  injury  calculations  were  not 
undertaken, due to the deficient data at hand and therefore, 
the said calculations could not be pre-disclosed to the party. 
For that reason, the party received the pre-disclosure which 
set a duty that fell under the ‘all others’ rate.

The  Hearing  Officer  explained  that  indeed,  a  specific  duty 
was  provided  to  the  party,  which  however  was  at  an  ‘all 
others’ rate, given the application of Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation. She found that at that stage of the proceeding, 
no  reconciliation  between  the  two  parties  was  possible. 
Nevertheless, she encouraged the Commission services to 
re-analyse the situation considering further comments raised 
by the party. She finally reminded the party that a residual 
margin did not have to be necessarily calculated, but that a 
conclusion could also be reached based on different sources. 
In the light of the above, she concluded that the rights of the 
parties had been respected.

AD687 Fatty acid originating in Indonesia

In  this  proceeding,  the  Hearing  Officer  was  requested  to 
intervene  on  several  different  occasions.  She  received 
requests from three Union producers, one request from an 
exporting producer and furthermore, two requests from the 
same user. 

One  Union  producer  requested  the  Hearing  Officer’s 
intervention  twice  but  was  not  granted  a  hearing  as  no 
issues concerning its rights of defence were raised, but only 
technical issues relating to the definition of the product under 
investigation. The Hearing Officer clarified that she was not 
part of the investigation and does not decide on the product 
scope in any given investigation. Two other Union producers 
alike were not granted a hearing because they did not raise 
issues related to their rights of defence in their intervention 
requests, and therefore, the Hearing Officer advised them to 
firstly address their concerns to the Commission services.

A hearing with another Union producer took place, and during 
the hearing, the party expressed its concerns as regards the 
impact of the anti-dumping measures in place at that time, 
as  exhibited  in  the  General  Disclosure  Document.  Another 
issue raised by that party concerned the withdrawal of the 
complaint, which took place before their first hearing with the 
Commission services was held. The party pointed out that 
despite  the  withdrawal  of  the  complaint,  the  Commission 
services did not react to the change of situation and did not 
inform them about their intention to continue or terminate 
the ongoing proceeding. The party also raised issues related 
to factors other than the imports that led to injury to the 
Union producers and claimed that major direct and indirect 
users of fatty acids were affected. Finally, the party noted 
that  the  entire  Union  and  Union  citizens  were  affected  by 
general  developments  regarding  the  production  of  fatty 
acids. 

The  Commission  services  explained  that  only  one  General 
Disclosure Document had been issued, proposing to impose 
definitive measures, where all comments made by the parties 
were addressed. After the disclosure, the interested parties 
had had the opportunity to provide further comments and, 
in the case at hand, the party concerned had availed itself of 
the opportunity. The Commission services concluded that all 
comments submitted by the parties concerned will be duly 
addressed in the final legal act.
The  user,  a  former  producer  of  fatty  acid  to  whom  a 
hearing  was  granted,  requested  an  intervention  related  to 
the Commission’s decision not to terminate the proceeding 

4

upon the withdrawal of the complaint, and not to take into 
consideration their views on the Union interest. During the 
hearing, the user raised three different issues:

She  did  not  grant  a  hearing  to  the  rest  of  the  interested 
parties, as they did not raise issues as regards their rights 
of defence.

• 

Complaint withdrawal and its consequences

•  Other factors that led to injury to the Union producers

• 

The Union users’ perspective.

The  Hearing  Officer  noted  that  the  procedure  was  still 
ongoing, and it remained to be seen what the Commission 
services concluded on the continuation or termination of the 
proceeding. She recalled the importance of the parties’ right 
to be heard and reminded that the parties’ comments will be 
addressed in the final act. 

AD684 Ceramic Tiles

In  this  proceeding,  the  Hearing  Officer  was  requested  to 
intervene four times by four different parties (three exporting 
producers and one party claiming to be a Union producer). 
The Hearing Officer granted a hearing to the party claiming 
to  be  a  Union  producer,  which  complained  that  several  of 
its relevant comments and objections raised had not been 
considered when issuing the general disclosure document. 

In  the  hearing,  firstly,  the  Commission  services  explained 
that the legal framework for the investigation was the basic 
Regulation  and  since  the  party  in  question  did  not  have 
any production capacities in the European Union, they were 
considered as importers. Taking that into consideration, the 
Commission services pointed out that there was no dumping 
behaviour  by  the  suppliers  of  the  Union  industry,  stressed 
that  the  required  questionnaires  had  been  and  still  were 
available  on  the  DG  TRADE  website  and  noted  that  some 
documents  that  the  party  had  wanted  to  submit  did  not 
relate to the criteria that would influence the Union interest 
test.

The  Hearing  Officer  expressed  her  satisfaction  with  the 
clarification  by  the  Commission  services  regarding  the 
status of the party concerned (importer) and concluded that 
the Commission services had to address, in an appropriate 
manner, the substantiated comments made by the party in 
the Final Regulation. 
Thus, she concluded that the rights of the parties had been 
respected.

4.  OTHER INTERVENTIONS

Replies to Intervention requests not leading to a hearing

The Hearing Officer received certain intervention requests that did not result in hearings.

On two occasions, the interested parties contested the definition of the product scope under investigation, which does not 
fall within the competence of the Hearing Officer. Once a party questioned the transparency of the information during an 
investigation. There were also simple requests for information. To such requests the hearing Officer replied in writing without 
resorting to a formal intervention.

To some further intervention requests, the Hearing Officer, again in accordance with the ToR, recommended that the parties 
try and settle the issues with the services first. 

Extension of deadlines

The Hearing Officer was requested to extend procedural deadlines once and granted the request. 

Generalized Systems of Preferences +

No request under the Generalized System of Preferences was filed in 2022. 

Safeguards

No requests under the safeguards Regulation were filed in 2022. 

Trade Barriers Regulation

No requests under the Trade Barriers Regulation were filed in 2022. 

Confrontational Hearing requests

No requests for any confrontational hearing were filed in 2022.

5

5. OTHER ACTIVITIES

Consultation on policy issues

The Hearing Officer was not consulted on policy issues in 2022.

Formal Recommendations

In 2022, the Hearing Officer did not make formal recommendations.

Decisions

The Terms of Reference confer on the Hearing Officer certain decision-making powers on a number of issues (for example 
disputes on access to file, confidential nature of a document, deadlines). The Hearing Officer decided in one case on a 
prolongation of deadlines.

Outreach and Training Activities

The Hearing Officer presented the Annual Activity Report for the year 2021 to the Working Party on Trade Questions, and 
it was published on the Hearing Officer’s website. Training on the role of the Hearing Officer was likewise offered to all 
newcomers of the Trade Defence Services. Finally, increasing visibility, and modernisation of the Hearing Officer Website 
was carried out, including facilitated access and an update of the content. This initiative will be further developed in 2023.

Cooperation with the Commission services responsible for investigations

The cooperation with the Commission services was satisfactory. Oversights that came to the attention of the Hearing Officer 
were corrected and the services agreed, for example, to expand disclosures, thereby respecting the rights of defence of the 
parties.

A formal consultation mechanism is in place obliging the Director responsible for policy changes or updates to consult 
the Hearing Officer, notably if they are likely to impact the rights of parties. As a matter of course, the Hearing Officer 
continues to be involved in all inter-service consultations initiated by DG Trade Directorate G, and in all proposals sent to 
the Commission for adoption. Although it did not happen in the past years, the Hearing Officer may also be consulted and 
intervene in other inter-service consultations.

Following the re-organisation of DG Trade, all staff of the Hearing Officer has been administratively attached to a DG Trade 
Unit. In 2019, the European Court of Auditors had concluded that, in spite of the administrative attachment of the Hearing 
Officer’s staff to DG Trade, at the time directly to a Director, the Hearing Officer acts independently from a functional point 
of view. This independence replies on the personalities of the persons involved rather than on the institutional setting. From 
a practical point of view, there has been no undue impact on the work of the Hearing Officer staff.

Transparency

Continuing overall progress can be noted in relation to trade defence policy. Parties are able to see the agenda of the Trade 
Defence Committee meetings which are put online. Likewise, the parties can also see the refund Decisions online. Case 
timelines are published on the DG TRADE website and case documents are updated to accommodate new rules. In addition, 
the Hearing Officer has acted upon requests of parties to verify the information in the confidential files of a proceeding in 
accordance with Article 15 of the ToR.

Parties’ right to good administration

The specific role of the Hearing Officer is to safeguard the application of the principles of EU law, namely the right to good 
administration.

The Trade Defence Services continue to make considerable efforts towards standardisation of procedures and thus more 
predictability for the parties. Extensive guidance is provided to case-handlers including on jurisprudence and new policy 
developments. Further explanations have been embedded in the DG TRADE internet site. This is essential to create trust in 
the Commission’s proceedings. Nevertheless, quality management in regard to substance and process also remain essential 
to this effect. 

6

Guidance for Interested Parties

The Hearing Officer has taken up an initiative to provide more step by step explanations as regards their role and competences 
to potential interested parties by adding guidelines on the website of the Hearing Officer.

This part, attached to the Hearing Officer’s website, gives guidance to interested parties and informs about questions and 
answers to issues likely to be raised by these interested parties, so as to enable them to bring across their valid concerns in 
a clear and comprehensive manner to the Hearing Officer.

6. THE ROLE OF THE HEARING OFFICER IN THE LITIGATIONS 

BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE

Since the formal establishment of the role of the Hearing Officer in 2010, there is mounting evidence that the Hearing 
Officer’s interventions are having an impact. Indeed, after completion of the proceedings, any of the interested parties may 
refer the issues to the European Court of Justice. 

By now, in a number of instances, the role of the Hearing Officer has been acknowledged by the European Courts. Therefore, 
it seems appropriate to, for the first time in the Hearing Officer’s reports, to highlight the corresponding cases and the 
conclusions drawn in them, which may form the basis for future interventions.

A  notable  mentioning  of  the  Hearing  Officer  took  place  in  case  T-753/1610    where  an  interested  party  had  not,  in  due 
time, requested an intervention of the Hearing Officer and, in general, expressed an exceptionally dismissive attitude while 
pleading alleged infringements of their right to a fair trial and the rights of defence.  The court, however, rejected such plea.

In  Case T-596/14 RENV II11 the applicant did not approach the Hearing Office during the proceeding, whereas the court found 
that “The applicant cannot justify the fact that it did not approach the hearing officer by the fact that its lawyers had made 
such a request unsuccessfully in another case. It is not disputed that (i) the applicant was entitled to address itself to the 
hearing officer and (ii) that the hearing officer’s assessments regarding respect for rights of the defence and confidentiality 
are made on a case-by-case basis, so that the existence of another such decision by the hearing officer cannot, of itself, rule 
out that, in the present case, he would have granted the applicant’s request.”

The two cases, thus, irrefutably recognized the role of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

There are two more notable cases, where the European Court of Justice found that the interventions of the Hearing Officer 
had made a substantial impact on the rights of defence for the applicant. 

In case T-278/2012 the applicant has had two hearings with the Hearing Officer and the court recognized that, because of 
these hearings, the applicant had received more favourable treatment in the investigations, and that their rights of defence 
had been observed in the proceeding to which they were subject. 

In case T-383/1713 the applicant alleged an infringement of the principle of good administration and rights of defence. 
However, four hearings with the Hearing Officer took place during the proceeding, and the applicant has had ample opportunity 
to be heard and receive explanations and clarifications from the Commission services responsible for the investigation. The 
court thus dismissed this plea, notwithstanding that, for other legal reasons, the Commission Implementing Regulation 
concerned was annulled.

In case T-144/2014 the court upheld the argument of the Commission that “if the applicant doubted that its right to be heard 
had been respected during the administrative procedure … it was entitled to refer the matter to the hearing officer, which 
it failed to do”. Furthermore, the court established that “it follows from all of the foregoing that, contrary to the applicant’s 
assertions, it had the opportunity to comment on the two elements on which it relies and that, consequently, the Commission 
did not infringe its rights of defence”. In all other cases where interventions of the Hearing Officer had been referred to 
without further details, it is evident that the issues that had been brought in due course before the Hearing Officer and had 
been resolved, so no longer could be used as an argument before the court.

In conclusion, it is evident that interventions of the Hearing Officer are serving the intended purpose, which is to strengthen 
the procedural guarantees for the exercise of the procedural rights of any interested parties concerned.

7

7. ANNEX

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerned by intervention requests in 2022

The following tables demonstrate the actual numbers and the ratios between the ongoing trade proceedings and intervention 
requests received by the Hearing Officer compared to the last 4 years. The methodology in place is the same one as the one 
used before for comparison and cross-reference purposes.

Table 1: Dynamics of intervention requests and interventions in 2022

The overall statistics concerning the intervention requests and Hearings with the Hearing Officer indicate that the Hearing 
Officer’s activities decreased compared to the ones performed in previous years. However, there is a certain stability regarding 
the number of intervention requests and Hearings with the Hearing Officer from January 2022 to December 2022.

Table 2: Trade proceedings concerned by intervention requests vs. ongoing proceedings (actual numbers)

The table represents the total number of intervention requests vs intervention request resulting in hearings.

The number of intervention requests that took place in both 2021 and 2022 remained roughly the same.

8

Table 3: Trade proceedings concerned by intervention – requests vs. ongoing investigations (in %)

The number of intervention requests in relation to ongoing proceedings is indicative only. As well as in year 2021, in many 
requests, several interested parties participated and occasionally represented different types of interested parties in the 
same proceeding.

Table 4: Trade proceedings concerned by intervention request vs. ongoing proceedings and the number of intervention 
requests vs. hearings

The actual number of cases as shown in this table corresponds to the cases investigated by Trade Defence in 2022. The table 
demonstrates certain stability in the number of intervention requests over the last three years. The number of Hearings that 
take place in a year is relatively low, compared to the multiple intervention requests per year. As far as the proceedings with 
intervention requests concerns, the Hearing Officer was requested to intervene at different stages of a single proceeding – or 
there were multiple intervention requests per proceeding from different interested parties.

9

Table 5: Interventions by case type

In 2022, the Hearing Officer was only requested to intervene in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings and issues 
related to Article 5 of the anti-dumping basic Regulation and Article 10 of the anti-subsidy basic Regulation, as well as in 
the only on-going safeguards proceeding.

Type

Proceedings 
ongoing 
1.1.2022

Proceedings 
initiated 2022

Sum of 
proceedings 
ongoing during 
2022

Proceedings in 
which the HO 
was requested 
to intervene

Initial cases (Art 5 AD, Art 10 AS)

Reviews

Other

Expiry

Interim

New exporter

Re-opening of a case

UT Withdrawal/Implementation

Pre-Initiation

Refund

Others (GSP and safeguards)

19

19

29

4

4

5

2

0

3

1

11

6

27

4

3

5

0

0

6

1

30

25

56

8

7

10

2

0

9

2

10

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

in %

33%

0%

18%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Total

86

63

149

20

13%

Interventions by type of requesting party

In 2022, the largest group of interested parties requesting an intervention were exporting producers, directly concerned with 
ongoing investigations.

In  2022,  governments  did  not  request  the  intervention  of  the  Hearing  Officer.  However,  an  EU  importer  requested  the 
intervention of the Hearing Officer under the mistaken belief that they are EU industry representatives.

Intervention requests by issues raised

The majority of requests, as in previous years, concerned requests for additional information and objections to the facts 
and findings of the investigation. Some of the requests also concerned the right to be informed or issues related to the 
Disclosure and extension of deadline.

In many requests, several different issues were raised simultaneously. Finally, in some cases, the same interested party 
reached out several times for an intervention of the Hearing Officer during the same proceeding with different issues.

10

8. END NOTES

1.  REGULATION (EU) 2015/1843 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 October 2015 laying down 
Union procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Union’s rights 
under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, OJ 
L 272, p.1.

2.  DECISION (EU) 2019/339 OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION of 21 February 2019 on the function 

and Terms of Reference of the Hearing Officer in certain trade proceedings, OJ L 60, 28.2.2019, p.20.

3.  A list of Trade Regulations covered is provided in Article 1 of the ToR.

4.  Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning protection 

against subsidisation and unfair pricing prices causing injury to Community air carriers in the supply of air services 
from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

5.  Regulation (EU) 2019/712 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on safeguarding 

competition in air transport, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 (OJ L 123, 10.5.2019, p.4).

6.  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1173 of 4 June 2020 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 on 

protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union and Regulation (EU) 
2016/1037 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Union as regards 
the duration of the period of pre-disclosure.

7.  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against 

dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.

8.  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against 

subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Union.

9.  EU Customs Tariff (TARIC) (europa.eu)

10.  Judgement of 22 September 2021, PAO Severstal v European Commission, T-753/16, ECLI:EU:T:2021:612

11.  Judgement of 24 September 2019, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd v European Commission,T-586/14 RENV II, 

ECLI:EU:T:2022:799

12.  Judgement of 6 July 2022, Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto 

Parts v Commission, T-278/20, ECLI:EU:T:2022:417

13.  Judgement of 2 April 2020,  Hansol Paper v Commission, T-383/17, ECLI:EU:T:2020:139

14.  Judgement of 8 July 2022, Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd v Commission, T-144/20, ECLI:EU:T:2022:346

11