Case C‑100/17 P
Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd
v
Council of the European Union
(Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 — Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan — Continuing interest in bringing proceedings)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 18 October 2018
Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Burden of proof
(Art. 263 TFEU)
Action for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Interest in bringing proceedings — To be considered of the Court’s own motion
(Art. 263 TFEU)
Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility
(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Action brought by an exporter challenging the determination of the normal value and the comparison of that value with the export price — Absence of any application for repayment by the exporter as regards the duties collected — Inadmissibility
(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 952/2013, Art. 121(1)(a); Council Regulation No 695/2006)
Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d))
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 37)
In an action for annulment, an interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the end of the proceedings and the Court hearing the case may raise of its own motion and at any stage of the proceedings the objection that a party has no interest in maintaining its application, by reason of the occurrence of a fact subsequent to the date on which the document instituting the proceedings was lodged. In that regard, if the Courts of the European Union may raise of their own motion and at any stage of the proceedings a question relating to the lack of a continuing interest of an applicant in bringing proceedings, it may also examine such a question when it has been raised during the proceedings by a party who relies for that purpose on sufficiently serious evidence. In the context of that examination, it is for the Courts of the European Union to invite the applicant to express its views on that question and to afford it the opportunity of submitting material such as to show in a relevant manner its continuing interest in bringing proceedings.
(see paras 38-40)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 45)
In the case of an action brought against a regulation determining a new normal value for a product imports of which are subject to an anti‑dumping duty, an applicant exporting the products in question which puts forward pleas alleging errors made in the regulation at issue so far as concerns the determination of the normal value and in the comparison of that value with the export price in the regulation at issue does not have an interest in bringing proceedings in the absence of any application for repayment of the duties collected on the basis of that regulation. That is the case where an applicant has failed to show, within three years of the date of notification of the customs debt, as laid down in Article 121 (1) (a) of Regulation No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, that it has applied to the customs authorities for the repayment of the sums on the basis of the act that it considers unlawful.
(see paras 53, 54)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 62)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 63, 64)