CELEX: C1995/351/28
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Mr Sven Åke Henriksson against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-197/95)

No C 351 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred within               Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Sveriges Betodlares
    the framework of the present application, including               Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henriksson against the
    those incurred by the applicants .                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              ( Case T-197/95 )
                                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /28 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                       (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, seven public companies established under              An action against the Commission of the European
the laws of Japan, manufacturers of, inter alia, certain types        Communities was brought before the Court of First
of electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs, challenge the             Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
decision of the Commission to initiate an interim review of           by Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs                 Henriksson, represented by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht, Dr
originating in Japan, in so far as it concerns the applicants '       Michael Schiitte and Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff with an
undertakings accepted by Commission Regulation ( EEC )                address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr
No 165/90 , imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on               Axel Bonn, Avenue Guillaume 62 .
imports of this kind of products .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
By Regulation ( EEC ) No 2112/90, the Council imposed a               — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 in so far as that
definitive anti-dumping duty of 60 % on imports of DRAMs                  Regulation refuses to fix, for the 1994/95 marketing
originating in Japan . However, DRAMs produced and                        year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable
exported to the Community by companies which offered the                  to the minimum sugar-beet prices also with regard to
aforementioned undertakings were exempted from this                       Sweden, for the period from 1 January to 30 June
definitive duty . The contested decision has been taken                   1 995 ,
following a request for a review, under Articles 14 and 15 of
                                                                      — order the Commission to bear the costs of these
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , by the European
Electronic Component Manufacturers' Association.                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants submit that the decision to initiate the
disputed review constitutes an act capable of review under            The applicants request the annulment of Commission
Article 173 of the EEC Treaty . As provided for in                    Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 , concerning the fixing of the
Article 15 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 , the decision      specific agricultural conversion rate relating to the sugar
to initiate an expiry review has the effect of maintaining in         market for the sugar marketing year 1994/95 in so far as it
force the anti-dumping measure concerned which would                  explicitly denies the determination of a specific agricultural
otherwise have expired after five years . The legal effect of         conversion rate for Swedish kronor, which would be
the decision to initiate the disputed review is, therefore, the       applicable to Sweden for the part of the sugar marketing
continued application of an anti-dumping measure on the               year 1994/95 from the date of accession to 30 Tune
                                                                      1995 .
applicants .
                                                                      The applicants state that the failure by the Commission to
                                                                      determine such a specific agricultural conversion rate has
The applicants further submit that the contested decision is          not been unintentional . Rather, the Regulation clearly
manifestly unlawful in so far as it concerns anti-dumping             reasons that the Commission ( incorrectly ) considers that no
measures which are clearly incapable of being the subject of          specific agricultural conversion rate need be determined
a valid interim review proceeding because they expired prior          with regard to the three new Member States, i.e. Finland,
to the initiation of the interim review concerned . As a              Sweden and Austria .
question of law, Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EC )
No 3283/94 provides for a maximum five-year period of                 The applicants maintain that the failure to determine a
validity for all anti-dumping measures unless it is                   specific agricultural conversion rate for Swedish kronor is
determined in an expiry review initiated prior to the expiry          based upon a misconception of the limited scope of the
of the five-year period and that the expiry would be likely to        transitional measures applicable to the sugar market in
lead to a continuation of dumping and injury . Accordingly,           Sweden during the 1994/95 sugar marketing year, infringes
the decision to initiate the disputed review infringes an             Article 1 ( 3 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1713/93
essential procedural requirement in so far as it concerns             and directly affects their rights in that it deprives them,
measures which had already expired .                                  without any legal basis, of their well-founded rights and
                                                                      expectations to participate in one of the fundamental
                                                                      elements of the sugar market regulation: the price
                                                                      Regulation.