«(Dumping – Decision terminating an expiry review – Community interest – Action for annulment)»

1.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Retention of a measure – Conditions – Existence of a Community interest (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 9(4), 11(2), (5) and (9), and 21)

2.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Assessment of the Community interest – Scope of the duty to state reasons – Judicial review – Limits (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21)

3.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Taking account of evidence from sources other than those referred to in Article 21(2) of the basic regulation on anti-dumping – Whether permitted (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21(2))

4.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Need to reassess the various interests involved (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21)

5.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Commission's discretion – Assessment of the Community interest – Taking account of data relating to the period prior to the introduction of the anti-dumping measures – Whether permitted (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21)

6.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Sending questionnaires – Taking account of replies sent after the expiry of the deadline – Whether permitted (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21(2) to (5))

7.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Adoption of measures or expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Criteria for assessing whether the information provided by users is representative (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21(5))

8.. Procedure – Measures of inquiry – Request for production of a document – Commission's internal documents – Disclosure excluded except in exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof falling on the applicant – Application to the report sent by the Commission to the Advisory Committee under Article 21(5) of Regulation No 384/96 (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 65(b); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21(5))

9.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Taking account of the opinions of users even where uncorroborated – Whether permitted (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21(7))

10.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Duty to hold a meeting for an exchange of views between the parties – No duty (Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 6(6), and 21(3), (4) and (6))

11.. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Expiry review procedure – Assessment of the Community interest – Requirement to take account of the cumulative effect of anti-dumping measures (Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 21)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 8 July 2003 (1)

((Dumping – Decision terminating an expiry review – Community interest - Action for annulment))

In Case T-132/01,

applicants, supported by

intervener,

v

defendant, supported by

interveners,

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2001/230/EC of 21 February 2001 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine and Venezuela (OJ 2001 L 84, p. 36), with regard to imports originating in the People's Republic of China, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges,

Registrar: J. Palacío González, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 26 November 2002,

gives the following

1.Arguments of the parties

2.Findings of the Court

(a) The interpretation of Article 11(2) and Article 21 of the basic regulation

(b) The first limb of the second plea

1.The first limb of the plea, alleging infringement of Article 11(2) and Article 21 of the basic regulation because the period since 1987 was taken into account in the analysis of the Community interest

(a) Arguments of the parties

(b) Findings of the Court

2.The second limb of the plea, alleging infringement of Article 21(2) and (5) of the basic regulation because submissions which users sent in late were taken into consideration

(a) Arguments of the parties

(b) Findings of the Court

3.Third limb of the first plea, alleging infringement of Article 21(5) of the basic regulation owing to the unrepresentative nature of the users' submissions

(a) Arguments of the parties

(b) Findings of the Court

4.The fourth limb of the plea, alleging infringement of Article 21(7) of the basic regulation because submissions not substantiated by users were taken into consideration

(a) Arguments of the parties

(b) Findings of the Court

1.Arguments of the parties

2.Findings of the Court

1.Second limb of the second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment with regard to the situation of the Community industry, and the factual error invoked in the context of the first limb of the first plea

(a) Arguments of the parties

(b) Findings of the Court

2.Third limb of the plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the impact of the measures on the users

(a) Arguments of the parties

─ The cost of the measures for the users

─ The impact of the measures on competition

─ The cumulative effect of the cost of the measures

(b) Findings of the Court

3.The fourth limb of the plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the balancing of interests

(a) Arguments of the parties

(b) Findings of the Court

1.Arguments of the parties

2.Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)

hereby:

Forwood

Pirrung

Mengozzi

Meij

Vilaras

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 July 2003.

H. Jung

N.J. Forwood

Registrar

President