Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2118 of 21 October 2025 reimposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in case T-122/23
Date: 2025-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Türkiye, countervailing charge, fish, import (EU), judgment of the Court (EU), originating product




L_202502118EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
L series













2025/2118


22.10.2025







            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2025/2118
of 21 October 2025
         
reimposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in case T-122/23


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) and in particular Articles 15(1) and 24 (1) thereof,

Whereas:
1.   PROCEDURE

1.1.   Previous investigations and measures in force







(1)


By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 (2), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye (‘the original investigation’).










(2)


On 4 June 2018, following a partial interim review concerning subsidisation of all exporting producers in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) (‘the basic Regulation’), the Commission decided to maintain the measures as established in the original investigation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823 (4).










(3)


On 15 May 2020, following a partial interim review, in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658 (5), the Commission amended the level of the countervailing duty for one exporting producer.










(4)


On 25 May 2021, following an expiry review in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the Commission extended the measures as established in the original investigation (and as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658) for a further five years by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823 (6).










(5)


On 8 December 2022, following a partial interim review the Commission published Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 (7) (‘the contested Regulation’) amending the definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823.




1.2.   The Judgment of the General Court of the European Union







(6)


On 6 March 2023, Ege İhracatçıları Birliği (Aegean Exporters Association), Akdeniz İhracatçıları Birliği (Mediterranean Exporters Association), İstanbul İhracatçıları Birliği (Istanbul Exporters Association), Doğu Karadeniz İhracatçıları Birliği (Eastern Black Sea Exporters Association), and Denizli İhracatçıları Birliği (Denizli Exporters Association), jointly with their members (‘the applicants’), brought an annulment action before the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) challenging the legality of the contested Regulation.










(7)


On 5 February 2025, the General Court issued its judgment in case T-122/23 (8)
Ege İhracatçıları Birliği and others v Commission, partially annulling the contested Regulation, insofar as it concerned the exporting producers Gümüşdoga Su Ürünleri Üretim Ihracat Ithalat AŞ (‘Gümüșdoğa’) and the other applicants, except for Özpekler İnșaat Taahhüt Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Șirketi and Selina Balık İșleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat Ticaret AȘ (‘the Judgment’).










(8)


The applicants raised several claims challenging the contested Regulation affecting the amounts of benefit found. The General Court ruled in their favour on two claims as it found that the Commission had made two errors of assessment affecting the amounts of benefit, namely the benefit received by way of ‘Exhibition Support Scheme’ and the benefit received by way of ‘Aegean Exporters’ Association support’.










(9)


Firstly, the General Court found that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when allocating the benefit received by Gümüșdoğa under the ‘Exhibition Support Scheme’ to the product concerned exported to the European Union during the investigation period.










(10)


The General Court established that the support received by Gümüșdoğa under this scheme was linked to its participation in an international trade fair organised in Boston (United States) between 17 and 19 March 2019 and that there was nothing in the file to conclude that the support was also linked to the product concerned exported to the European Union during the investigation. Consequently, the General Court found that the approach followed by the Commission in the contested Regulation did not appear to be substantiated.










(11)


The General Court further noted that it was for the Commission to demonstrate, on the basis of evidence or at least indicia, that, notwithstanding the fact that that support was linked to Gümüșdoğa’s participation in an international trade fair organised in Boston, the support also benefited exports of the product concerned to the European Union during the investigation period concerned.










(12)


Secondly, the General Court ruled that the Commission also made a manifest error of assessment when attributing the benefit received by Gümüșdoğa in respect of ‘Aegean Exporter’s Association support’ to the product concerned exported to the European Union during the investigation period.










(13)


The General Court found that the benefit from the Aegean Exporter’s Association was linked to support in respect of air transport and, during the investigation period concerned, the exports of the product concerned to the European Union were carried out by Gümüșdoğa by road transport and not by air transport.










(14)


Under those circumstances, the General Court found that the approach followed by the Commission, consisting in allocating the benefit received under that scheme to the total export turnover of the group during the relevant period, and then attributed to the product concerned, did not appear to be substantiated.










(15)


The General Court did not annul the measures with respect to two of the sampled exporting producers, Özpekler İnșaat Taahhüt Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Șirketi and Selina Balık İșleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat Ticaret AȘ, as they did not have an interest in bringing proceedings.




1.3.   Implementation of the General Court’s Judgment







(16)


Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as the anti-subsidy investigation in this case, compliance with the General Court’s judgment consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the General Court is eliminated (9).










(17)


According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’), the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred (10). That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-subsidy procedure.










(18)


In a situation where for instance a Regulation imposing definitive anti-subsidy measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-subsidy proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order (11), except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation. The resumption of the administrative procedure and the eventual re-imposition of duties cannot be seen as contrary to the rule of non-retroactivity (12).










(19)


In this case the General Court annulled the contested Regulation as regards the exporting producers concerned on the grounds that the Commission had incorrectly allocated the benefit received by one sampled exporting producer from two subsidy schemes.










(20)


The other findings of the contested Regulation which were not contested, or which were contested but rejected by the General Court, remain fully valid and are not affected by this reopening (13).










(21)


Given the judgment of the General Court, the Commission decided to reopen the investigation that led to the contested Regulation and to resume the investigation at the point where the illegality occurred.










(22)


Following the Judgment, on 15 April 2025 the Commission published a Notice (14) (‘the reopening Notice’), reopening the investigation but limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment of the General Court.










(23)


The Commission also published Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/719 (15) (‘the registration Regulation’) making imports of certain rainbow trout subject to registration and instructed national customs authorities to await the publication of the relevant Commission Implementing Regulation re-imposing the duties before deciding on any claims for repayment and remission of countervailing duties regarding these imports.










(24)


The Commission informed interested parties of the reopening and invited them to comment. One comment was received from the Danish Aquaculture Organisation supporting the imposition of countervailing duties on imports of certain rainbow trout from Türkiye. They made no comments however on the judgment of the General Court.










(25)


No interested party requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.




1.4.   Procedural steps for the implementation of the General Court’s Judgment







(26)


The General Court decided that the Commission had not correctly allocated the benefit received by Gümüșdoğa from two subsidy schemes during the investigation period.










(27)


For both schemes the Commission had allocated the benefit to export turnover. However, the General Court disagreed with this allocation and set out its reasons in the Judgment.










(28)


The Commission noted that the General Court did not contest the Commission’s findings that both schemes were countervailable and that a benefit was received, and therefore to implement the Judgment the allocation may need to be established differently.










(29)


The WTO case-law stipulates that money giving rise to countervailable subsidies received by exporting producers is fungible (16) and thus could confer benefit to the production and/or exports of the product concerned. Consequently, at the very least the Commission could have allocated the amount of the benefit which is countervailable to the total turnover of the exporting producer.










(30)


However, the Commission noted that, due to the very small amounts that Gümüșdoğa received as benefit for both the ‘Exhibition Support Scheme’ and the ‘Aegean Exporters’ Association support’ scheme, the duty rate for Gümüșdoğa would be adjusted to 4,2 %, irrespective of whether these subsidies were allocated to the product concerned or not taken into account at all.










(31)


Thus, the Commission decided not to countervail the two schemes in question. This led to decrease of the total amount of subsidisation found from 4,4 % to 4,2 %.










(32)


Given that Gümüșdoğa was part of the sample, its subsidy calculations also affected the sample average duty applicable to the following companies that are also affected by the judgment, namely Abalıoğlu Balık ve Gıda Ürünleri A.Ş., Bağcı Balık Gıda ve Enerji Üretimi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Ertuğ Balık Üretim Tesisi Gıda ve Tarım İşletmeleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Kemal Balıkçılık İhracat LTD. ŞTİ., Kılıç Deniz Ürünleri Üretimi İhracat ve İthalat A.Ş., Liman Entegre Balıkçılık San ve Tic. Ltd. Şti, More Su Ürünleri Ticaret A.Ş., Ömer Yavuz Balıkçılık Su Ürünleri San. Tic. Ltd. Şti, Premier Kültür Balıkçılığı Yatırım ve Paz. A.Ş., Uluturhan Balıkçılık Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi, and Yavuzlar Otomotiv Balıkçılık San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. Their countervailing duty rate was revised down from 4,0 % to 3,8 %.










(33)


Given that the countrywide duty was set at the level of Gümüșdoğa, which received the highest individual duty of the sampled exporting producers, the revised subsidy calculations also affected the duty for one company that is also affected by the judgment, which had received the countrywide countervailing duty, namely Kuzuoğlu Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Its countervailing duty rate was revised down from 4,4 % to 4,2 %.










(34)


The essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the duties were to be revised were disclosed to Gümüșdoğa and other interested parties on 26 June 2025 and they were given a period within which they could comment on the disclosure.




1.5.   Comments on disclosure







(35)


The Commission received comments on the disclosure from the exporter Uluturhan Balıkçılık Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi. However, those comments (relating to the amount of subsidisation for that company) did not relate to the scope of the re-opening of the investigation.










(36)


The Commission also received comments from the exporter Kuzuoğlu Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (‘Kuzuoğlu’) whose situation was described in recital 33 as a company subject to the countrywide duty.










(37)


In its comments Kuzuoğlu made the Commission aware that a notice had been published in the Trade Registry Gazette on 12 January 2022 to change the name of the company Lazsom Su Urunleri Gida Uretim Pazarlama Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi to Kuzuoğlu Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and requested that the Commission reconsider the duty applicable to Kuzuoğlu as disclosed.










(38)


A questionnaire was sent to Kuzuoğlu on 8 July 2025 for the company to confirm whether a name change from Lazsom Su was justified. No reply was received.










(39)


The Commission therefore rejected the request for a name change.




2.   DEFINITIVE COUNTERVAILING MEASURES







(40)


The revised level of countervailing duty resulting from the reopening of the investigation applies without any interruption from the entry into force of the contested Regulation (namely, as of 9 December 2022 onwards). Customs authorities are instructed to collect the appropriate amount on imports and refund any excess amount collected so far in accordance with the applicable customs legislation.










(41)


In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (17), when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.










(42)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,




HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

1.   A definitive countervailing duty is imposed on imports of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss):






—


live weighing 1,2 kg or less each, or










—


fresh, chilled, frozen and/or smoked:






—


in the form of whole fish (with heads on), whether or not gilled, whether or not gutted, weighing 1,2 kg or less each, or










—


with heads off, whether or not gilled, whether or not gutted, weighing 1 kg or less each, or










—


in the form of fillets weighing 400 g or less each,








currently falling under CN codes ex 0301 91 90 , ex 0302 11 80 , ex 0303 14 90 , ex 0304 42 90 , ex 0304 82 90 , ex 0305 43 00  and ex 1604 19 10  (TARIC codes 0301 91 90 11, 0302 11 80 11, 0303 14 90 11, 0304 42 90 10, 0304 82 90 10, 0305 43 00 11 and 1604 19 10 11), originating in Türkiye and manufactured by the exporting producers listed in paragraph (2).


2.   The rates of the definitive countervailing duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below shall be as follows, as of 9 December 2022.







Company


Countervailing duty


TARIC additional code




Fishark Su Ürünleri Üretim ve Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş.


3,4  %


B985




Gümüşdoga Su Ürünleri Üretim Ihracat Ithalat AŞ


4,2  %


B964




Özpekler İnşaat Taahhüd Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi


3,1  %


B966




Selina Balık İşleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi


2,8  %


C889




Abalıoğlu Balık ve Gıda Ürünleri A.Ş.


3,8  %


B968




Bağcı Balık Gıda ve Enerji Üretimi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.


3,8  %


B977




Ertuğ Balık Üretim Tesisi Gıda ve Tarım İşletmeleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and More Su Ürünleri Ticaret A.Ş.


3,8  %


C891




Kemal Balıkçılık İhracat Ltd. ŞTİ.


3,8  %


B981




Kılıç Deniz Ürünleri Üretimi İhracat ve İthalat A.Ş.


3,8  %


B965




Liman Entegre Balıkçılık San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Şti


3,8  %


B982




Ömer Yavuz Balıkçılık Su Ürünleri San. Tic. Ltd. Şti


3,8  %


B984




Premier Kültür Balıkçılığı Yatırım ve Paz. A.Ş.


3,8  %


C893




Uluturhan Balıkçılık Turizm Ticaret Limited Şirketi


3,8  %


C894




Yavuzlar Otomotiv Balıkçılık San. Tic. Ltd. Şti


3,8  %


C895




Alima Su Ürünleri ve Gıda Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş.


4,0  %


B974




Baypa Bayhan Su Urunleri San. Ve Tic. A.S.


4,0  %


C890




Lazsom Su Urunleri Gida Uretim Pazarlama Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi


4,0  %


C892




Kuzuoğlu Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.


4,2  %


89MI




All other imports originating in Türkiye


4,4  %


B999







Article 2
Any definitive countervailing duty paid in accordance with Article 1(2) under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 in excess of the definitive countervailing duty established in Article 1 shall be repaid or remitted.
The repayment or remission shall be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with the applicable customs legislation.


Article 3
The definitive countervailing duty imposed by Article 1 shall also be collected on imports registered in accordance with Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/719 making imports subject to registration.
Customs authorities are directed to discontinue the registration of imports, established in accordance with Article 1(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/719, which is hereby repealed.


Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 October 2025.


For the Commission


The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1037/oj.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 of 26 February 2015 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 12, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2015/309/oj).

(3)  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 (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/1036/oj).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823 of 4 June 2018 terminating the partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey (OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 14, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/823/oj).

(5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658 of 15 May 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey following an interim review pursuant to Article 19(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 155, 18.5.2020, p. 3, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/658/oj).

(6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823 of 20 May 2021 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 183, 25.5.2021, p. 5, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/823/oj).

(7)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 of 7 December 2022 amending the definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823 following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 8.12.2022, p. 52, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/2390/oj).

(8)  ECLI:EU:T:2025:133.

(9)  Joined cases 97, 193, 99 and 215/86 Asteris AE and others and Hellenic Republic v Commission [1988] ECR 2181, paragraphs 27 and 28.

(10)  Case C-415/96 Spain v Commission [1998] ECR I-6993, paragraph 31; Case C-458/98 P Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Council [2000] I-8147, paragraphs 80 to 85; Case T-301/01 Alitalia v Commission [2008] II-1753, paragraphs 99 and 142; Joined Cases T-267/08 and T-279/08 Région Nord-Pas de Calais v Commission [2011] II-0000, paragraph 83.

(11)  Case C-415/96 Spain v Commission [1998] ECR I-6993, paragraph 31; Case C-458/98 P Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Council [2000] I-8147, paragraphs 80 to 85.

(12)  Case C-256/16 Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg, Judgment of the Court of 15 March 2018, paragraph 79 and C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, judgment of 19 June 2019, paragraph 5.

(13)  Case T-650/17, Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd, ECLI:EU:T:2019:644, paras. 333–342.

(14)  
            OJ C, C/2025/2264, 15.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2264/oj.

(15)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/719 of 14 April 2025 making imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye subject to registration following the reopening of the investigation in order to implement the judgment of 5 February 2025 in case T-122/23 regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 (OJ L, 2025/719, 15.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/719/oj).

(16)  
            ‘capable of being substituted in place of one another’ (www.oed.com).See in this sense for example WT/DS267/R, United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton, para 7.644.

(17)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/2118/oj
ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)