natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2001. - Common commercial policy - Anti-dumping measures - Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 - Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan - Reference for a preliminary ruling on whether that regulation is valid - Failure by the plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking annulment of the regulation. In Case C-239/99,
PRESUDA SUDA 15. veljače 2001.() „Zajednička trgovinska politika - Zaštita od dampinških praksi - Članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2849/92 - Izmjena konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara - Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku kojom se ocjenjuje valjanost - Propust tužitelja u glavnom postupku da podnese tužbu za poništenje" U predmetu C-239/99,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Njemačka), u postupku koji se vodi pred tim sudom između
Nachi Europe GmbH
Nachi Europe GmbH
and Hauptzollamt Krefeld,
i Hauptzollamt Krefeld,
on the validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2),
o valjanosti članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2849/92 od 28. rujna 1992. o izmjeni konačne antidampinške pristojbe koja je uvedena Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1739/85 o uvozu kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara (SL L 286, str. 2.) [neslužbeni prijevod],
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges,
u sastavu: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, predsjednik, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (izvjestitelj), M. Wathelet i V. Skouris (predsjednici vijeća), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen i F. Macken, suci,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
tajnik: H. A. Rühl, glavni administrator,
Nachi Europe GmbH, by N. Polley and A. Scheffler, Rechtsanwälte,
za Nachi Europe GmbH, N. Polley i A. Scheffler, Rechtsanwälte,
the Council of the European Union, by S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwälte,
za Vijeće Europske unije, S. Marquardt, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju G. Berrischa i H.-G. Kamanna, Rechtsanwälte,
the Commission of the European Communities, by V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan, acting as Agents,
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, V. Kreuschitz i N. Khan, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the oral observations of Nachi Europe GmbH, the Council and the Commission, at the hearing on 26 September 2000,
saslušavši usmena očitovanja društva Nachi Europe GmbH, Vijeća i Komisije na raspravi održanoj 26. rujna 2000.,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 November 2000,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 16. studenoga 2000.,
1 By order of 21 June 1999, received at the Court on 24 June 1999, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC two questions on the validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2).
1 Rješenjem od 21. lipnja 1999., koje je Sud zaprimio 24. lipnja 1999., Finanzgericht Düsseldorf postavio je Sudu na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a dva prethodna pitanja o valjanosti članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2849/92 od 28. rujna 1992. o izmjeni konačne antidampinške pristojbe koja je uvedena Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1739/85 o uvozu kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara (SL L 286, str. 2.).
2 Those questions have been raised in a dispute between Nachi Europe GmbH (Nachi Europe) and the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Krefeld (the Hauptzollamt) following the latter's decision to reject Nachi Europe's request for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to Regulation No 2849/92.
2 Ta su pitanja postavljena u okviru spora između društva Nachi Europe GmbH (u daljnjem tekstu: Nachi Europe) i Hauptzollamt Krefelda (u daljnjem tekstu: Hauptzollamt) nakon odluke potonjeg o odbijanju zahtjeva društva Nachi Europe za povrat antidampinških pristojbi plaćenih u skladu s Uredbom br. 2849/92.
3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 of 24 June 1985 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ball bearings and tapered roller bearings originating in Japan (OJ 1985 L 167, p. 3) imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ball bearings of Japanese origin having a greatest external diameter of more than 30 mm.
3 Uredbom Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1739/85 od 24. lipnja 1985. o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz određenih kugličnih ležajeva i valjkastih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana [neslužbeni prijevod] (SL L 167, str. 3.) uvedene su konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara.
In particular, Regulation No 1739/85 imposed on ball bearings manufactured by NTN Toyo Bearing Ltd (NTN), Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd (Koyo Seiko) and Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi Fujikoshi) definitive anti-dumping duties amounting, respectively, to 3.2%, 5.5% and 13.9% of the net, free-at-Community-frontier price before duty.
Uredbom br. 1739/85 osobito se uvode konačne antidampinške pristojbe za kuglične ležajeve koje proizvode društva NTN Toyo Bearing Ltd (u daljnjem tekstu: NTN), Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd (u daljnjem tekstu: Koyo Seiko) i Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation (u daljnjem tekstu: Nachi Fujikoshi) u iznosu od 3,2 %, 5,5 % odnosno 13,9 % neto cijene franko granica Zajednice, neocarinjene.
4 Those duties were modified by Regulation No 2849/92, which was adopted pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1) and entered into force on 2 October 1992.
4 Te su pristojbe izmijenjene Uredbom br. 2849/92, koja je donesena na temelju Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2423/88 od 11. srpnja 1988. o zaštiti od dampinškog ili subvencioniranog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske ekonomske zajednice [neslužbeni prijevod] (SL L 209, str. 1.) i koja je stupila na snagu 2. listopada 1992.
5 It is clear, in particular, from the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2849/92 that the Council concluded that removing the existing anti-dumping measures would lead to a recurrence of material injury for the Community industry (recital 39) and that the Community clearly had an interest in maintaining protection for its ball bearings industry against unfair competition caused by imports at dumped prices (recital 44).
5 Iz uvodnih izjava Uredbe br. 2849/92 osobito proizlazi da je Vijeće ocijenilo da bi uklanjanje postojećih antidampinških mjera dovelo do ponavljanja znatne štete za industriju Zajednice (uvodna izjava 39.) i da Zajednica ima jasan interes za daljnju zaštitu svoje industrije kugličnih ležajeva od nepoštenog tržišnog natjecanja uzrokovanog uvozom po dampinškim cijenama (uvodna izjava 44.).
After comparing price levels (recitals 45 to 52), Regulation No 2849/92 modified the existing definitive duties, inter alia by fixing them, in Article 1(2), at 11.6% for NTN, 13.7% for Koyo Seiko, and 7.7% for Nachi Fujikoshi.
Nakon usporedbe razina cijena (uvodne izjave 45. do 52.) Uredbom br. 2849/92 izmijenjene su postojeće konačne pristojbe tako da su, među ostalim, u članku 1. stavku 2. utvrđene pristojbe od 11,6 % za NTN, 13,7 % za Koyo Seiko i 7,7 % za Nachi Fujikoshi.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko
Presuda Prvostupanjskog suda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće i presuda Suda Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko
6 By judgment of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995] ECR II-1381, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, ruling in an action brought by NTN and Koyo Seiko seeking the annulment of Regulation No 2849/92, annulled Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92 in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicants.
6 Presudom od 2. svibnja 1995., NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće (T-163/94 i T-165/94, Zb., str. II-1381.), Prvostupanjski sud Europskih zajednica, koji je odlučivao o tužbi za poništenje Uredbe br. 2849/92 koju su podnijeli NTN i Koyo Seiko, poništio je članak 1. Uredbe br. 2849/92 „u mjeri u kojoj se njome tužiteljima određuje antidampinška pristojba". [neslužbeni prijevod]
7 The above judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council makes clear that the Court of First Instance took the view that several recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2849/92 contained statements which were vitiated by errors of fact or of law, or which were misleading because they were incomplete.
7 Iz gore navedene presude NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće proizlazi da je Prvostupanjski sud smatrao da više uvodnih izjava Uredbe br. 2849/92 sadržava tvrdnje s činjeničnim ili pravnim greškama ili tvrdnje koje su obmanjujuće zbog svoje nepotpunosti.
The Court of First Instance accordingly concluded that the finding in recital 39 in the preamble to that regulation that dumped imports threatened to cause the Community ball-bearing industry material injury was itself wrong in law and in fact.
Prvostupanjski je sud stoga zaključio da je tvrdnja iz uvodne izjave 39. te uredbe, prema kojoj se dampinškim uvozom može nanijeti znatna šteta proizvodnji kugličnih ležajeva u Zajednici, sama po sebi pravno i činjenično pogrešna.
8 In its judgment of 10 February 1998 in Case C-245/95 P Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko [1998] ECR I-401, the Court dismissed the Commission's appeal against the judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council.
8 Presudom od 10. veljače 1998., Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko (C-245/95 P, Zb., str. I-401.), Sud je odbio žalbu Komisije protiv gore navedene presude NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće.
The Court pointed out in particular that the Council's failure, as found by the Court of First Instance, to establish that there was injury or threat of injury within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 2423/88 was sufficient to warrant the annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92.
Sud je osobito istaknuo da je činjenica da Vijeće, kako je utvrdio Prvostupanjski sud, nije dokazalo štetu ili prijetnju štete u smislu članka 4. Uredbe br. 2423/88, dovoljna da se opravda poništenje članka 1. Uredbe br. 2849/92.
9 Drawing the consequences from the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko, the Commission, on 3 June 1998, published Notice 98/C 168/04 entitled Notice concerning anti-dumping measures on imports of ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan (OJ 1998 C 168, p. 6), which stated, so far as definitive duties collected after the entry into force of Regulation No 2849/92 were concerned, that importers could request their refund from national customs authorities with regard to products manufactured by Koyo Seiko and NTN. The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions submitted for a preliminary ruling
9 Kao posljedica gore navedenih presuda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće i Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko, Komisija je 3. lipnja 1998. objavila komunikaciju 98/C 168/04 pod nazivom „Obavijest o uvozu kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara" (SL C 168, str. 6.), u kojoj je navela da uvoznici mogu od nacionalnih carinskih tijela zatražiti povrat konačnih pristojbi naplaćenih nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 2849/92 za proizvode koje proizvode Koyo Seiko i NTN. Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja
10 Nachi Europe, which is a subsidiary of Nachi Fujikoshi, imported, in November and December 1995, ball bearings of Japanese origin manufactured by its parent company, and cleared them for release into free circulation at the customs post in Mönchengladbach, which comes under the responsibility of the Hauptzollamt.
10 Nachi Europe, društvo kći društva Nachi Fujikoshi, uvezao je u studenom i prosincu 1995. kuglične ležajeve podrijetlom iz Japana koje proizvodi njegovo društvo majka te ih je pustio u slobodni promet u carinarnici u Mönchengladbachu, koja je u nadležnosti Hauptzollamta.
11 To that end, Nachi Europe paid anti-dumping duties totalling DEM 58 891.51 imposed by payment notices of 17 November 1995 and 29 December 1995.
11 U tu je svrhu Nachi Europe platio antidampinške pristojbe u ukupnom iznosu od 58 891,51 DEM određene carinskom odlukom od 17. studenoga 1995. i 29. prosinca 1995.
12 In a letter received by the Hauptzollamt on 19 November 1998, Nachi Europe requested reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties which it had paid, pleading the illegality of Regulation No 2849/92 resulting from the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko.
12 Nachi Europe zatražio je u dopisu koji je Hauptzollamt zaprimio 19. studenoga 1998. povrat antidampinških pristojbi koje je platio pozivajući se na nezakonitost Uredbe br. 2849/92 na temelju gore navedenih presuda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko.
13 By decision of 11 January 1999 the Hauptzollamt rejected the request for reimbursement.
13 Hauptzollamt je odlukom od 11. siječnja 1999. odbio zahtjev za povrat.
It also dismissed the administrative complaint lodged by Nachi Europe against that decision.
Isto je tako odbio prigovor koji je protiv te odluke podnio Nachi Europe.
14 In support of the action which it then brought before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Nachi Europe submitted that Regulation No 2849/92 imposes anti-dumping duties on the ball bearings which it imported and that, in the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko, the actions for annulment brought by other importers had been upheld.
14 Nachi Europe naveo je u potporu tužbi koju je zatim podnio pred Finanzgerichtom Düsseldorf da se Uredbom br. 2849/92 određuju antidampinške pristojbe za kuglične ležajeve koje je on uvezao i da su u gore navedenim presudama NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko prihvaćene tužbe drugih uvoznika za poništenje.
15 The Finanzgericht noted that, while the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko declared Regulation No 2849/92 invalid only in regard to the applicants in those cases, and not in regard to Nachi Europe, the grounds of those judgments none the less point to the conclusion that Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 is invalid in its entirety.
15 Finanzgericht je utvrdio da iako je u gore navedenim presudama NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko Uredba br. 2849/92 proglašena nevaljanom samo u pogledu tužitelja u tim predmetima, ali ne i u pogledu društva Nachi Europe, iz obrazloženja tih presuda proizlazi da je članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 u cijelosti nevaljan.
16 In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
16 U tim je okolnostima Finanzgericht Düsseldorf odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
1. Is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 invalid?
„1. Je li članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2849/92 nevaljan?
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, from what point in time is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 to be considered invalid in regard to the plaintiff?
2. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan, otkada se članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2849/92 smatra nevaljanim u pogledu tužitelja?"
17 It is clear from the order for reference that, by its first question, the referring court is seeking to ascertain, not whether Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 is invalid in its entirety, but only whether that provision is invalid to the extent to which it imposes an anti-dumping duty on ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and imported by its subsidiary Nachi Europe, these being the only products at issue in the main proceedings.
17 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da sud koji je uputio zahtjev svojim prvim pitanjem ne želi utvrditi je li članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 nevaljan u cijelosti, već samo je li ta odredba nevaljana u mjeri u kojoj se njome određuje antidampinška pristojba za kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi i koje uvozi njegovo društvo kći Nachi Europe te koji su jedini proizvodi koji su predmet glavnog postupka.
18 To that end it is necessary to consider, first, whether the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 in so far as that provision fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and, second, whether, if they did not have such an effect, Nachi Europe can plead that that anti-dumping duty is invalid in a dispute before a national court.
18 U tom pogledu valja ispitati, s jedne strane, utječu li gore navedene presude NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko na valjanost članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 u mjeri u kojoj se tom odredbom određuje antidampinška pristojba primjenjiva na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi i, s druge strane, ako nema takvog utjecaja, može li se Nachi Europe pozvati na nevaljanost te antidampinške pristojbe u postupku pred nacionalnim sudom.
The effect of the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko on the validity of the anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi
Utjecaj gore navedenih presuda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko na valjanost antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi
19 It is appropriate at the outset to recall the conditions under which an individual has locus standi to bring an action for the annulment of a regulation, such as Regulation No 2849/92, which imposes anti-dumping duties.
19 Na početku valja podsjetiti na uvjete pod kojima pojedinac ima procesnu legitimaciju za podnošenje tužbe za poništenje uredbe o uvođenju antidampinških pristojbi, kao što je Uredba br. 2849/92.
20 The fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC makes the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person subject to the condition that the contested measure, although in the form of a regulation, is of direct and individual concern to that person.
20 Prema članku 230. četvrtom stavku UEZ-a prihvatljivost tužbe za poništenje koju je podnijela fizička ili pravna osoba uvjetovana je time da se pobijani akt, iako je u obliku uredbe, izravno i osobno odnosi na tu osobu.
21 According to settled case-law, regulations imposing an anti-dumping duty, although by their nature and scope of a legislative nature, are liable to be of direct and individual concern to inter alios those producers and exporters who are able to establish that they were identified in the measures adopted by the Commission or the Council or were concerned by the preliminary investigations (see, in particular, Joined Cases 239/82 and 275/82 Allied Corporation and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 1005, paragraph 12), or, again, to those importers whose retail prices for the products in question form the basis of the constructed export price, where exporter and importer are associated (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2945, paragraph 19).
21 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi uredbe koje uvode antidampinšku pristojbu, iako su po naravi i dosegu normativnoga karaktera, mogu se izravno i osobno odnositi, među ostalim, na one proizvođače i izvoznike koji mogu pokazati da se akti Komisije i Vijeća odnose na njih ili da su predmet pripremnih istraga (vidjeti osobito presudu od 21. veljače 1984., Allied Corporation i dr./Komisija, 239/82 i 275/82, Zb., str. 1005., t. 12.) ili na one uvoznike čije su prodajne cijene predmetnih proizvoda osnova za izračun izvozne cijene ako je izvoznik povezan s uvoznikom (vidjeti osobito presudu od 11. srpnja 1990., Neotype Techmashexport/Komisija i Vijeće, C-305/86 i C-160/87, Zb., str. I-2945., t. 19.).
22 The Court has ruled that, where a regulation which introduces an anti-dumping duty imposes different duties on a series of undertakings, an undertaking is individually concerned only by those provisions which impose on it a specific anti-dumping duty and determine the amount thereof, and not by those provisions which impose anti-dumping duties on other undertakings, with the result that an action brought by that undertaking will be admissible only in so far as it seeks the annulment of those provisions of the regulation that exclusively concern it (Case 240/84 Toyo v Council [1987] ECR 1809, paragraphs 6 and 7; Case 255/84 Nachi Fujikoshi v Council [1987] ECR 1861, paragraphs 7 and 8; Case 256/84 Koyo Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1899, paragraphs 6 and 7; and Case 258/84 Nippon Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1923, paragraphs 7 and 8).
22 Sud je presudio da ako se uredbom o uvođenju antidampinške pristojbe određuju različite pristojbe za više društava, na određeno se društvo osobno odnose samo one odredbe kojima se tom društvu određuju posebna antidampinška pristojba i njezin iznos, ali ne i one kojima se drugim društvima određuju antidampinške pristojbe, tako da je tužba koju podnese to društvo prihvatljiva samo u mjeri u kojoj se njome zahtijeva poništenje onih odredaba uredbe koje se odnose isključivo na njega (vidjeti presude od 7. svibnja 1987., Toyo/Vijeće, 240/84, Zb., str. 1809., t. 6. i 7., Nachi Fujikoshi/Vijeće, 255/84, Zb., str. 1861., t. 7. i 8., Koyo Seiko/Vijeće, 256/84, Zb., str. 1899., t. 6. i 7., te Nippon Seiko/Vijeće, 258/84, Zb., str. 1923., t. 7. i 8.).
23 It was within the context of that case-law that NTN and Koyo Seiko, ball-bearing manufacturers named in Regulation No 2849/92, each brought an action before the Court of First Instance in which they sought annulment of that regulation to the extent to which it affected them individually.
23 NTN i Koyo Seiko, proizvođači kugličnih ležajeva na koje se odnosi Uredba br. 2849/92, podnijeli su svaki u okviru te sudske prakse tužbu pred Prvostupanjskim sudom za poništenje te uredbe u mjeri u kojoj ona utječe na svako od tih društava.