#ECJ: #AntiDumping Challenge – #AG Medina suggests the Court should recognise the legal standing of the #China Chamber of Commerce.

#ECJ: #AntiDumping Challenge – #AG Medina suggests the Court should recognise the legal standing of the #China Chamber of Commerce as a representative association 👉 https://t.co/ATb3CgbPxg

— EU Court of Justice (@EUCourtPress) February 16, 2023

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
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 (manhole covers). In 2018, the CCCME had unsuccessfully challenged before the General Court a
Commission Regulation1 that imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of cast iron articles originating in the
People’s Republic of China (PRC). By the present appeal, the CCCME is asking the Court to set aside the General
Court2
judgment of May 2021.
The Commission, as well as a number of European companies operating in the cast iron market (interveners)
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 does 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 today’s Opinion, Advocate General Laila Medina analyses in particular the issues raised concerning the
standing of the CCCME under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The Advocate General also examines
the procedural rules governing the disclosure obligations of the Commission in anti-dumping administrative
procedure.
Advocate General Medina assesses in the first place the pleas of inadmissibility. In this respect, Advocate General
Medina emphasises that the legal characterisation of the CCCME as an interested party cannot be presumed. It is
for the General Court to ascertain the status and which (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 ground that the Commission
had granted it procedural rights during the anti-dumping proceedings, whilst not verifying whether the grant of…

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-02/cp230035en.pdf