CELEX: 61997TO0267
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended composition) of 25 May 1998. # Broome & Wellington v Commission of the European Communities. # Action for annulment - Notice of initiation of an an anti-dumping proceeding - Inadmissibility. # Case T-267/97.

Avis juridique important

|

61997B0267

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended composition) of 25 May 1998.  -  Broome & Wellington v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Action for annulment - Notice of initiation of an an anti-dumping proceeding - Inadmissibility.  -  Case T-267/97.  

European Court reports 1998 Page II-02191

Summary
Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Acts having binding legal effects - Commission decision initiating an anti-dumping proceeding - Preparatory act(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 384/96)  

Summary

Measures whose legal effects are binding and are capable of affecting the applicants' interests by clearly altering their legal position constitute acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.  In the case of acts adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in principle only measures definitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusion of the procedure constitute acts which may be contested, as opposed to intermediate measures intended to pave the way for the final decision, whose legality may only be challenged in an action brought against the final decision.  Moreover, only measures immediately and irreversibly affecting the legal position of the undertakings concerned are of such a nature as to justify, before completion of the administrative procedure, the admissibility of an action for annulment.Since the act by which the Commission initiates anti-dumping proceedings is a purely preparatory act, it cannot be regarded as an actionable measure. It follows from the provisions of anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 that the Commission is responsible for carrying out investigations and deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or to continue them, either by adopting provisional measures or by proposing to the Council that it adopt definitive measures. That conclusion cannot be called into question either by the fact that, before a particular complaint was submitted, the Commission's spokesman had stated that the Commission would immediately open a procedure if a new complaint were lodged - which is a matter which falls to be examined in connection with the substantive legality of the Notice of Initiation - or by any greater or lesser degree of certainty as regards the imposition of anti-dumping duties since, in law, the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding does not necessarily result in such duties being imposed. Moreover, the Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding does not have the legal effect of compelling the undertakings concerned to alter their commercial practices or to cooperate in the investigation.