«(Anti-dumping duties on imports of electric motors) »

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Interpretation of Community rules – Regulations imposing a variable anti-dumping duty on imports of certain standardized multi-phase motors – Scope ratione materiae – Motor parts – Excluded (Council Regulation No 864/87; Commission Regulation No 3019/86) Regulation No 3019/86 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors and Regulation No 864/87 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on the same imports must be interpreted as applying only to imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors which are complete or finished.That interpretation is supported,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 28 March 1996 (1)

((Anti-dumping duties on imports of electric motors))

In Case C-99/94,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

and

on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3019/86 of 30 September 1986 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors having an output of more than 0.75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the USSR (OJ 1986 L 280, p. 68), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 864/87 of 23 March 1987 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors having an output of more than 0.75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union, and definitively collecting the amounts secured as provisional duties (OJ 1987 L 83, p. 1),

THE COURT (Third Chamber),,

composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Fennelly,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Robert Birkenbeul GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission at the hearing on 7 December 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 January 1996,

gives the following

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of 9 March 1994, hereby rules:

Puissochet

Moitinho de Almeida

Gulmann

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 March 1996.

R. Grass

J.-P. Puissochet

Registrar

President of the Third Chamber