(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 Contestazione Antidumping: L’Avvocato Generale Medina suggerisce alla Corte di riconoscere la legittimazione ad agire della China Chamber of Commerce in quanto associazione rappresentativa
La China Chamber of Commerce soddisfa i criteri di un’associazione rappresentativa ai sensi del regolamento di base e quindi dell’articolo 263, quarto comma, del TFUE.
Conclusioni dell’Avvocato generale nella causa C?478/21 P | China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products e.a. / Commissione
In allegato il comunicato stampa in inglese e francese
Cristina Marzagalli e Sofia Riesino
Unità Stampa e Informazione – Sezione IT
Direzione della comunicazione
[cid:image001.jpg@01D52C0D.E2ED57E0]
[cid:image002.png@01D52C0D.E2ED57E0]
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

��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
those rights was consistent with the basic regulation
Although the Commission recognised, during the
administrative pro
ceedings, the CCCME as an interested party
such recognition and grant constitute an
administrative practice, which is not binding for the determination carried out by the EU judicature
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 ‘association’ 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
‘representative association’ 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

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
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 countries’ 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
NOTE:
The Advocate Gen
eral’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General
to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The
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
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings
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
(+352) 4303 3355