(AGENPARL) - Roma, 16 Febbraio 2023

(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Advocate General’s Opinion C-478/21 P | China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products e.a. / Commission
Anti-Dumping Challenge: Advocate General Medina suggests the Court should recognise the legal standing of the China Chamber of Commerce as a representative association
The China Chamber of Commerce meets the criteria of a representative association within the meaning of the basic regulation and, thus, of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU
Kind regards,
Vittorio Quartetti
Trainee
Press and Information Unit
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
[logo-en]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 35
/23

Luxembourg, 16 February 2023

Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion C
–
478/21

P | China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of
Machinery and Electronic Products e.a. / Commission

Anti
–
Dumping Challenge: Advocate General Medina
suggests
the Court
should

recognise

the legal standing of the

China Chamber of Commerce
as
a representative association

The China Chamber of Commerce

criteria

of a
representative
association within the meaning of the
basic regulation

and, thus, of the fou
rth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU

The
China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)
is an
association governed by Chinese law whose members include Chinese exporting producers of certain cast iron
articles

(m
anhole covers)
.

In 2018, the CCCME had
unsuccessfully
challenged
before the General Court
a
Commission Regulation
1

that imposed an anti
–
dumping duty on imports of cast iron articles originating in
the
Peopleâ??s Republic of China

(PRC)
. By the present appeal
,

the

Court
2

judgment of May
202
1
.

request that the Court dismiss this
appeal
. In
particular,

the
Commission and interveners
argue that the CCCME
cannot be

an association representing exporting producers in the PRC,
since it

acts under the supervision,
management and business direction of the

PRC
ministries concerned. The interveners add that
CCCME

doe
s not
merely take instruction from the State, but acts on behalf of the State in the organisation of the commercial
activities of the exporting producers.

In todayâ??s Opinion
,

Advocate General
Laila
Medina
analyses

in particular
the

issues
raised concernin
g

the
standing of the CCCME

under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU
.
T
he Advocate General
also examines
the procedural rules governing the disclosure obligations of the Commission in anti
–
dumping
administrative
procedure.

Advocate General Medina
a
ssesses

in the first place

the plea
s

of
in
admissibility
.
In this respect, Advocate General
Medina
emphasises that the legal characterisation of the CCCME as an interested party cannot be presumed. It is
for
t
he General Court

to ascertain the status and wh
ich (if any) procedural rights the CCCME should have been
granted by the Commission in accordance to the basic regulation.

Advocate General Medina takes the view that the
General Court was wrong to hold

that the CCCME was individually concerned

on the grou
nd that the Commission
had granted it procedural rights during the anti
–
dumping proceedings, whilst not verifying whether the grant of

1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti
–
dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast i
ron articles originating in the PRC and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast
iron articles originating in India (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 6).

2

Judgment of 19 May 2021,
Case T
–
254/18,
China Chamber of Commerce for Import and E
xport of Machinery

and Electronic Products v Commission.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

those rights was consistent with the basic regulation
3
.
Although the Commission recognised, during the
administrative pro
ceedings, the CCCME as an interested party
,

such recognition and grant constitute an

in an action for
annulment.
Therefore, the Advocate General proceeds w
ith an in depth analysis of the characterisation of the
CCCME.

The Commission and the interveners contend that the term â??associationâ?? should be understood according to the
common traditions of the EU Member States, as relating to an entity that is constitu
ted and acts in a democratic
manner and is inde
pendent from government.
Advocate General Medina
is of the opinion

that
the concept of
â??representative associationâ?? under the basic regulation encompasses
not only
that of freedom of association
but also the c
oncept of trade or business association within the meaning of international trade law
.

When
the said freedom of association does not apply, an entity can still be representative of its members within
the meaning of the basic regulation and in the context o
f international trade law.
The

freedom of association
cannot be used in a way
in order to restrict the rights of an entity, which claims to represent undertakings or an
industry.

The

Advocate General
notes

that, according to the Statutes of the Associatio
n, the purpose of the CCCME is to
represent certain exporters of the PCR of
cast iron
.

Insofar as State interference is concerned, the Advocate General finds that
while
, according to the Statutes of the
CCCME, it

appears
that

the Chinese State exercises s
ome control

over that entity
, such broad terms are not
sufficient to demonstrate that the State exercises control in a manner that precludes the representation of the
interests of the exporters or constitutes an emanation of the PRC.

For the purposes of th
e anti
–
dumping
proceedings under the basic regulation, it must be shown that the control exercised by the State applies
specifically to the decisions made by that association in relation to those proceedings.

Advocate General Medina therefore takes the vi
ew that
,
irrespective of the alleged interference of the PRC in
the CCCME, that entity meets the
criteria
of a representative association

within the meaning of the basic
regulation
.
Therefore, it should be considered as individually concerned within the me
aning of Article 263 TFEU on
account of the failure to obs
erve its procedural rights.

defends the collective interests of its members agains
t that same State is not in line with the fundamental principles
of representative demo
cracy.
In this respect, Advocate General Medina finds that
an alleged
connection to the
State is insufficient to declare the CCCME as an emanation of the State or that t
he CCCME is not organised in
a democratic manner.
The evidence provided to the General Court does not suffice to show that the decision to
bring court proceedings was taken without the consent of the members and at the behest of the government.

The
Advocat
e General
therefore
suggests

that the Court
should reject
the
plea of inadmissibility based on the allegation

that the CCCME is not representative of its members in legal proceedings.

Concerning the
d
isclosure obligations of the Commission
,
t
he CCCME

obtai
ned
, during the anti
–
dumping
procedure,

overall figures in relation to the microeconomic and macroeconomic indicators. That entity

asserts

however

that the Commission should have provided
in

aggregated form the calculations underlying
those

indicators
that

enabled the assessment of the injury c
aused to the EU.

In this regard, Advocate General Medina notes that t
he

decision to grant the confidential treatment

of data
entails
iate the proceedings and whose
complaint is the foundation of the investigations) and the rights of
access to information of
the third country
exporting producers and their representative associations.

3

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries n
ot members of the
European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

In

t
he light of
that balance
, it should be considered
that the presentation
of
overall figures

does not
necessarily entail an infringement of
the

rights of the defence

of the CCCME
. In that respect, it is important to
emphasise that
the cooperation of
the
producers from third countriesâ?? or EU producers consti
tutes the basis of the
anti
–
dumping investigation
. Therefore,
macroeconomic data, when based on
the estimates provided by the EU
producers and on their

of the EU industry
, ought to be
granted confidential treatment
.

NOTE:

The Advocate Gen
eralâ??s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
Judges of the Court are now beginning their
deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.

NOTE:
An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspe
nsive effect. If the appeal is admissible and
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it ref
ers the case back to the
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355