C-120/77

fact constitutes a collective decision The argument as to the effectiveness relating to named addressees. of this combination for the purpose of 2. The fact that the implementation of a monitoring the observance of the provision contained in a regulation undertaking and being able to necessitates implementing measures penalize any infringement of it cannot adopted by the national authorities be accepted since the provisions of the regulation and in particular those of does not prevent such provision from being of direct concern to the natural Article 14 (2) (d) provide that in such a case the Commission must re­ or legal persons to whom it applies commence the examination of the where such implementation is purely facts in accordance with Article 10. automatic. This is even more the case where implementation is effected in 4. The Council, having adopted a pursuance not of intermediate general regulation with a view to national rules but of Community rules implementing one of the objectives of alone. Article 113 of the Treaty, cannot derogate from the rules thus laid 3. It follows from Article 14 of Regu­ lation No 459/68 of the Council that down in applying those rules to specific cases without interfering with the acceptance by the Commission of the legislative system of the an undertaking from the exporter or Community and destroying the exporters to revise their prices entails equality before the law of those to the termination of the anti-dumping whom that law applies. procedure. It is accordingly unlawful for an anti-dumping procedure to be 5. It follows from the wording of Article terminated on the one hand by such 17 of Regulation No 459/68 that a decision to collect the amounts an acceptance and on the other hand by a decision adopted by the Council secured by way of provisional duty under Article 17 of the same regu­ may be adopted only at the same time lation involving the definitive as the imposition of a definitive anti­ collection of the amount which, in dumping duty. pursuance of Article 15 of the regu­ It follows in particular that the lation, has been determined by the Commission may propose a decision Commission by way of provisional to collect the amounts secured only if anti-dumping duty and security for it proposes "Community action", in which has been provided by the other words, the introduction of a exporter or exporters concerned. definitive anti-dumping duty.

represented by J. P. Karsenty, Advocate at the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 38 Rue du Curé, applicants, v

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Hans-Jürgens Lambers, Director at the Legal Department of the Council, acting as Agent, assisted by Paul-François Ryziger, Advocate at the Conseil d'État and the Cour de Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of J. N. Van den Houten, European Investment Bank, 2 Place de Metz,

and

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by J. Groux, acting as Agent, assisted by Bernard Martin, Advocate at the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mario Cervino, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendants, and

FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN BEARING MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATIONS (FEBMA), Frankfurt, represented by Dietrich Ehle, Advocate at the Cologne Bar, assisted by Roger l'Eleu, Advocate at the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Jeanne Housse, Huissier, 21 Rue Aldringen, intervener,

APPLICATION for the annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1778/77 of 26 July 1977 concerning the application of the anti-dumping duty on ball bearings and tapered roller bearings, originating in Japan (Official Journal 1977, L 196, p. 1),

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of the providing that the "price of the product procedure and the conclusions, when exported to the Community is less submissions and arguments of the parties than the comparable price ... in the may be summarized as follows: exporting country of origin" and explains this definition. Article 4 limits the concept of injury. I — Facts and procedure The normal procedure begins with the lodging of a complaint by a natural or (a) The framework of the legislation legal person or an association submitted Regulation (EEC) No 459/68 of the either to a Member State or to the

KOYO SEIKO v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION

are unnecessary the proceedings stand respect of which payment is not claimed terminated. Otherwise the Commission but importers must provide security to submits to the Council forthwith a report that amount, "collection of which shall "on the results of the consultation" be determined by the subsequent decision together with a proposal that the of the Council under Article 17". - proceedings be terminated. If the Article 17 concerns the lot of the pro­ Council "acting by a qualified majority, visional duty and provides as follows: approves the proposal ... the proceeding shall stand terminated. It shall likewise "1. Where the facts as finally established stand terminated if within one month the show that there is dumping and Council has taken no decision or made injury, and the interests of the no request by a qualified majority to the Community call for Community intervention, the Commission shall, Commission asking it to resume its exami­ nation of the matter" (Article 14 (1)). after hearing the opinions expressed within the Committee, submit a Article 14 (2) (a) provides as follows: proposal to the Council. Such "The provisions of the foregoing proposal shall also cover the matters paragraph shall also apply where, during set out in paragraph 2. examination of the matter, the exponers 2. (a) The Council shall act by a give a voluntary undertaking to revise qualified majority. Where Article their prices so that the margin of 15 (1) has been applied, the dumping is eliminated or to cease to Council shall decide, subject to export the product in question to the the provisions of Article 15 (2), Community, provided that the what proportion of the amounts Commission, after hearing the opinions secured by way of provisional expressed within the Committee, duty is to be definitively considers this acceptable". collected.

of Regulation No 459/68 provides, in 10% for the products manufactured and accordance with Article 8 (b) of the exported by Nachi Fujikoshi Cor­ General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade poration and Koyo Seiko Company Anti-dumping Code, that the products Limited. referred to are described indicating the In the meantime the Commission carried name of the supplier. Article 20 (2) out an investigation at the European provides that the only exception to this (French, British and German) sub­ rule is where it is impracticable to name sidiaries of the Japanese companies all the suppliers. during the months from February to Importers who wish to show that April 1977. Because those subsidiaries products, although subject to anti­ were associated with the producer dumping duties, were not dumped, have companies, it based its calculations of the the means of administrative appeal export prices on the "price at which the (Article 19 (4)). imported product is first resold to an independent buyer" (Article 3 (3)). (b) Facts Because of the great variety of categories of products on the market it adopted for By document of 15 October 1976, the Committee of the European Bearing each undertaking a sample of repre­ Manufacturers' Associations, an sentative products and determined the average price. Finally, the prices association at that time without legal determined were reduced by fixed per­ personality whose members were the three German, British and French trade centages so as to reconstruct the export price to be adopted for the purposes of organizations submitted a complaint to comparison with domestic prices. the Commission concerning dumping by Japanese roller bearing manufacturers. From 18 to 28 April 1977 an After consultation with the Member investigation was held in Japan at the States, the Commission decided on 9 four major producers by a group of experts from the Commission with the November 1976 to carry out an official collaboration of a chartered accountant, anti-dumping investigation. It informed an expert from the United Kingdom and the Japanese mission of this and sent an expert from the Federal Republic of questionnaires to all the known Germany. importers and exporters and published the required notice in the Official From the end of May until the end of Journal of 13 November 1976, C 268, June 1977 meetings were held between p.2. the Commission and the Japanese roller bearings producers on the possibility of When the replies to the questionnaires an undertaking as to prices. After four had been received, the European and weeks of discussion the four major Japanese manufacturers met on 18 and Japanese producers signed on 20 June 19 January 1977 so that each side could 1977 undertakings that they would put its views and arguments to the other. increase prices. The Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty of 20% on ball bearings and tapered roller bearings and parts thereof originating in Japan by Regulation (EEC) No 261/77 of 4 February 1977 (Official Journal 1977, L 34, p. 60), which was extended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 944/77 (Official Journal 1977, L 112, p. 1). However the percentage was fixed at

On 26 July 1977 the Council adopted (EEC) No 1778/77. They claim that definitive measures by issuing Regulation during the discussions which followed (EEC) No 1778/77 concerning the the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) application of the anti-dumping duty on No 261/77 imposing a provisional anti ball bearings and tapered roller bearings, dumping duty, they undertook by originating in Japan. agreement of 20 June 1977 no longer to Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No have recourse to practices considered 1778/77 imposes a definitive anti unacceptable by the Commission and that, by telex message of 3 August 1977, dumping duty of 15%, whose the Commission declared that it was application is however suspended.

rules. Member States within the Advisory Committee provided for in Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 459/68, convened (d) Procedure within a period of five days, terminate The application, dated 5 October 1977, the suspension of the application of the was entered in the Court Register on 10 definitive duty. October 1977. On the same day, the In application of Article 17 (2) (a) of applicants requested the Court to adopt interim measures.

The intervener published in the Official Journal on lodged its observations on the objection 3 August 1977 (L 196, p. 1). of inadmissibility on 15 February 1978, On the same date the Commission and the applicants lodged their obser accepted the undertakings given by the vations on 3 March 1978. Japanese producers on 20 June 1977. Having heard the report of the Judge- Rapporteur and the views of the (c) The subject-matter of the dispute The applicants have lodged the present application against Council Regulation

open the oral procedure without any individual concern to the applicants. preparatory inquiry. The contested regulation is adopted on However, the Court requested the the basis of an objectively determined situation, in other words the existence of parties to answer certain questions in writing. dumping on the Community market and of injury to the European industry. The regulation is a general measure applying II — Conclusions of the parties to all importers of the goods upon whom an anti-dumping duty has been imposed. The applicants claim that the Court The importers are referred to in the should: abstract and not by reason of a personal attribute which distinguishes them from — Annul Council Regulation (EEC) No other undertakings engaged in the same 1778/77 of 26 July 1977; activity. — Order the defendants to pay all the The category of importers of ball costs, including those of the bearings in the Community is moreover intervener. much less limited than one might believe and, according to the Council, amounts The Council contends that the Court to 267 importers. should: The fact that the applicants were among — Declare the application inadmissible; the undertakings which were the subject- matter of the Commission's intervention — Dismiss the application with all the cannot show that the contested measure legal consequences; is of direct concern to them. The fact — Order the applicants to pay all the that the Commission notified them of costs. that measure as a mere act of courtesy cannot qualify them under the second The Commission contends that the paragraph of Article 173. Court should: The Commission and the intervener make

The applicants explain fully that only the those two has been established. Nor has basic regulation, Regulation No 459/68, it been established how "the price at is a legislative measure and the contested which the imported product is first re measure constitutes merely a specific sold to an independent buyer" was application thereof. Regulation No found, a most important question in view 1778/78 is of direct and individual of the differences in the conditions of concern to them. sale, the differences in taxation and the differences in practices on the markets. The first applicant is expressly named in Article 3 of the contested regulation. The Next, the applicants did not have access to the information referred to in Article

There is no within the second paragraph of Article reason why the Commission should not, 173. The contested regulation did not for the future, adopt measures intended refer to the conduct of the applicants to enable a rapid response to be made in but, on the contrary, to an objective cases in which the undertakings given are situation, in other words dumping, evaded or not observed. This was so in regardless of the persons who were the present case because of the extent of responsible for the dumping. the dumping found to exist, both as The arguments of the Commission and regards the size of the margin and the the intervener are to the same effect. volume of exports.

On the other hand, As an example of the breaches of Regu it proposed that the Council should, as lation No 459/68, the application states that neither dumping nor injury nor, finally, the causal connexion between

regards the future, take into account the of the matter which had shown the undertaking, whilst suspending the existence of dumping and injury, its regu definitive anti-dumping duty which it lation amply fulfilled that requirement. proposed that it should impose and The existence of both dumping and of which the contested regulation in fact injury were established sufficiently in law imposed. by the Commission's findings. If the applicants can establish that no dumping As regards the alleged infringement of exists, Article 19 (4) of Regulation No the rights of the defence, the Council 459/68 enables them to bring evidence. observes that the imposition of an anti However the applicants do not seriously dumping duty in no way constitutes a conviction and that there can therefore contest that the facts found by the Commission are accurate as a whole. be no question of the establishment of a right of defence as understood in judical As regards the allegation that the duty matters nor even of the establishment of imposed is not equal to the percentage of a right defence in the sense in which it dumping found by the Commission, this exists in the procedures laid down in allegation does not take into account the Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. Article ven structure of the anti-dumping duty 10 of the basic regulation refers only to and, moreover, Article 19 (4) of the basic the defence of interests. regulation would offer and appropriate remedy if the applicants' allegation Moreover, the Council states that the proved to be correct. undertakings concerned were notified of The Commission states that the nature the matters complained of in accordance with Article 10. The Commission is not and objective of the anti-dumping duty bound to inform those concerned of the require the general application thereof to manner in which it conducts its products of several producers intended for various countries in the Community.

In those which it reached the findings of the circumstances, it was not for the Commission to give any details when the definitive regulation was drawn up; it is not the author of that regulation. This reply is sufficient by itself to dismiss the argument based on an absence of reasons. However, it follows from case-law that the statement of the reasons on which a regulation is based may be succinct. Since the Council recalled the findings made on the occasion of the preliminary examination

existence of dumping and injury and that mation supplied was "fragmentary and of a causal connexion between the two. incorrect" it was for the investigators to ask for additional information. As regards dumping, the applicants were perfectly acquainted with the infor The defendants wrongly refer to the mation on which it relied, with the objectives of the anti-dumping policy in exception of the confidential information order to show that the investigation given by third parties. As regards the provided for by Regulation No 459/68 is complaint that Article 14 of the basic not such that it requires that each party regulation was not applied, it is stated should be able to put its case to the that the Japanese industrialists gave other. Perusal of Articles 8 to 14 of that undertakings only on 20 June 1977 so regulation shows the contrary.

It duty applicable until the end of 1977. appears that the Commission considered Finally, the Commission states the that it was sufficiently informed to fundamental criteria which, in its decide to introduce an anti-dumping opinion, should be applied in the exami duty but not to grant a claim for nation of the legality of anti-dumping repayment which is justified. measures. In this context, it mentions the As regards the statement of reasons on complexity of the economic phenomena which the contested measure is based, and the difficulties of an investigation. the applicants rely upon Article 4 (b) and The provisions of the basic regulation Article 17 (2) (b) for the purpose of main must be appraised in the light of those taining that the basic regulation requires circumstances. In particular, it is a more complete statement of reasons. impossible to reduce the margin of discretion which it leaves to the It is for the Community authorities to Community authorities. establish the existence of dumping and injury and the defendants cannot escape The observations of the intervener the duty to provide evidence thereof. support the arguments of the defendants. Thus the argument based on Article 19 In their reply, the applicants begin by denying that they are guilty of dumping; they protest against the accusation that they supplied inadequate and incorrect information and allege that the nature of the procedure, which requires that each party should be able to put its case to the other, was not respected. The applicants never hindered the Commission's investigation. If the infor-

(4) of Regulation No 459/68 is The argument based on a fresh irrelevant. The applicants ask whether investigation by virtue of the applicants' the Commission has in fact examined all complaint under Article 19 (4) of the the factors which are such as to influence basic regulation also proves confusion. Community production of ball bearings, As regards the insufficient statement of as required by Article 4 (3) of the basic reasons, the Council maintains in all regulation, whether it has studied the respects the arguments put forward at special characteristics of Japanese the stage of the defence, stating them in commerical methods and whether it took more detail on several points. It has into account the structure of Japanese proved to be impossible to check the industry and the efforts made resulting in information supplied by those concerned a reduction in the cost price of its because the invoicing system used by the products. According to the applicants, Japanese industry was incomplete and the replies must be in the negative. fragmentary. The Commission's services discovered that a retroactive increase of The use of the method indicated by Article 3 (3) of Regulation No 459/68 is 8% had been applied with effect from also responsible for serious lacunae in January 1976, whereas the industry had the conduct of the investigation. claimed to have charged an increase only in July 1976. As regards the undertaking, the Moreover, it was an established fact that applicants state that it was the result of the Koyo company sold a loss on the long negotiations with the Commission, Japanese market, in the same way which implies that the latter had moreover as other producers. It is clear accepted the bases of it. Moreover, the that a sale at a loss cannot be considered contested regulation seems to accept the as a normal transaction, whereas during undertaking because it suspends the the period under consideration the other collection of the definitive duty. It is sectors of the Japanese industry were therefore not permissible that the making normal profits. The Council procedure was not terminated. supplies in addition details of the method Finally, the applicants continue to of calculation applied for the purposes of consider that the contested regulation establishing the export prices, observing could not impose an anti-dumping duty that all those details were known to the

time claimed that there was no dumping, As regards injury, the Community auth­ injury or causal link between the two. It orities have also examined all the other refers to the Court to decide whether factors which might have had an unfa­ those new submissions are admissible. vourable influence on the European The applicants are trying to shift the industry. This examination led to the burden of proof by introducing conclusion that Japanese dumping was confusion between the duty to give a exerting a serious influence. statement of reasons upon which the regulation is based and the burden of The observations in the Commission's proof. rejoinder essentially support the It is easy for the applicants to bring arguments of the Council. evidence of the absence of dumping as that evidence is in no way "negative" evidence. It cannot therefore merely contest in the abstract the existence of IV — Oral procedure dumping. The applicants are trying to prove that The parties presented oral argument at the Community authorities were unable the hearing on 10 and 11 January 1979. to establish the existence of a dumping The Advocate General delivered his situation whereas they themselves know opinion at the hearing on 14 February this better than anybody but do not wish 1979. to reveal it in the procedure and submit it to the decision or the Court.

Decision

1 By application of 5 October 1977, received at the Court Registry on 10 October 1977, the applicants, Koyo Seiko Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Koyo"), Deutsche Koyo Wälzlager Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, Koyo (UK) Limited and Koyo France (hereinafter referred to as "the subsidiaries") brought before the Court of Justice under Article 173 of the Treaty an action against the Council and the Commission for the annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1778/77 of 26 July 1977 concerning the application of the anti-dumping duty on ball bearings and tapered roller bearings, originating in Japan (Official Journal 1977, L 196, p. 1).

6 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1778/77 of 26 July 1977 then introduced, under Article 17 of Regulation No 459/68, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 15% on the products in question, suspended the application of that duty, and provided, as regards the products exported by the four major Japanese producers, for the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty laid down in Regulations Nos 261/77 and 944/77.

The admissibility of the application for annulment

7 The defendant institutions have raised an objection of inadmissibility claiming that the contested measure is a regulation and that the applicants are therefore not entitled to request annulment of it under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

KOYO SEIKO v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION

8 They claim that in the present case this is not a decision adopted in the guise of a regulation since Regulation No 1778/77 in fact constitutes a general rule which affects all the products in question originating in Japan and which must, according to Article 19 (1) of Regulation No 459/68 of the Council of 5 April 1968 on protection against dumping or the granting of bounties or subsidies by countries which are not members of the European Economic Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 80), be adopted in the form of a regulation.

9 The applicants reply that the contested measure, although drafted in abstract terms, in fact affects only the first applicant and three other Japanese under­ takings which produce the products in question (hereinafter referred to as "the major producers"), as well as their subsidiaries in the Community.

15 In these circumstances there is no need, as regards the question whether the contested measure is of direct and individual concern to the applicants, to make a distinction in relation to them between producers on the one hand and importers on the other.

16 Regulation No 1778/77 contains essentially three provisions:

— Article 1 imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty of 15% on the products in question originating in Japan and suspends the application of that duty without prejudice to Article 2;

— Article 2 regulates the monitoring of the undertakings given by the major Japanese producers and empowers the Commission to terminate the suspension of the application of the duty if it finds that these under­ takings are being evaded, not being observed or have been withdrawn;

— Article 3 provides, in respect of the products manufactured by the major producers, for the collection of the amounts secured by way of pro­ visional duty in application of the imposition by previous regulations of a provisional duty.

17 For the purpose of judging the admissibility of the application, those three articles should be examined separately.

23 As regards the admissibility of the application in so far as it is directed against Article 3, that article constitutes a collective decision relating to named addressees.

24 Although the collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional anti­ dumping duty is per se of direct concern to any importer who has imported the products in question subject to such duty, the special feature of Article 3 which sets it apart is that it does not concern all importers but only those who have imported the products manufactured by the four major Japanese producers named in that article.

25 The allegation of the defendant institutions and the intervener that only implementing measures adopted by the national authorities are of direct concern to the importers and that these importers should therefore, where appropriate, bring the matter before the national courts having jurisdiction disregards the fact that such implementation is purely automatic and, moreover, in pursuance not of intermediate national rules but of Community rules alone.

26 Article 3 of Regulation No 1778/77 is therefore of direct and individual concern to those importers and consequently the applications lodged by the subsidiaries, as importers of Koyo products, are admissible.

JUDGMENT OF 29. 3. 1979 — CASE 120/77

27 As a result the application lodged by Koyo against that article is also admissible.

"(a) The provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall also apply where, during examination of the matter, the exporters give a voluntary under­ taking to revise their prices so that the margin of dumping is eliminated

KOYO SEIKO v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION

or to cease to export the product in question to the Community, provided that the Commission, after hearing the opinions expressed within the Committee, considers this acceptable.

(b) Where the Commission, acting in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing subparagraph, accepts the undertaking referred to therein, the investigation of injury shall nevertheless be completed if the exporters so desire or if, after hearing the opinions expressed within the Committee, the Commission so decides. If the Commission, after hearing the opinions expressed within the Committee, makes a determi­ nation of no injury, the undertaking given by the exporters shall auto­ matically lapse unless the exporters state that it is not so to lapse.

(c) The fact that exporters do not offer to give such undertakings, or do not accept an invitation made by the Commission to do so, shall in no way be prejudicial to the consideration of the case. However, the Commission shall be free to determine that a threat of injury is more likely to be realized if the dumped imports continue.

(d) Where the Commission finds that the undertaking of exporters is being evaded or no longer observed or has been withdrawn and that, as a result, protective measures might be necessary, it shall forthwith so inform the Member States and shall recommence the examination of the facts in accordance with Article 10.

34 In the light of these provisions it is unlawful for one and the same anti­ dumping procedure to be terminated on the one hand by the Commission's accepting an undertaking from the exporter or exporters to revise their prices at the same time as, on the other, by the imposition on the part of the Council, at the proposal of the Commission, of a definitive anti-dumping duty.

35 It is impossible to accept the argument that in the present case the under­ taking was given only after examination of the matter, since the examination of the matter ends only when the Commission submits its proposals to the Council, whilst it is not disputed in the present case that the undertakings were signed on 20 June 1977 before the meeting of the advisory committee provided for in Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 459/68 held on 21 June 1977.

36 Those undertakings were referred to by the Commission in its proposal to the Council of 4 July 1977 and considered to be "acceptable".

37 As has been pointed out above, the same undertakings were referred to by the Council both in the recitals in the preamble to Regulation (EEC) No 1778/77 and in the provisions of that regulation as valid, existing under­ takings.

38 The fact that the Commission did not notify its acceptance of the under­ taking until 3 August 1977 cannot therefore be considered as an indication that that acceptance was made only "subject to" the suspended imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty as a penalty.

KOYO SEIKO v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION

44 In any case Regulation No 459/68 aims to ensure that the measures to be taken are adopted in compliance with the formalities and guarantees laid down in Article 10.

45 The argument that Regulation No 1778/77 constitutes a measure sui generis based directly on Article 113 of the Treaty and not subject to the provisions of Regulation No 459/68 disregards the fact that the whole proceeding in question was carried out within the context of the provisions laid down by that regulation.

JUDGMENT OF 29. 3. 1979 — CASE 120/77

46 The Council, having adopted a general regulation with a view to implementing one of the objectives laid down in Article 113 of the Treaty, cannot derogate from the rules thus laid down in applying those rules to specific cases without interfering with the legislative system of the Community and destroying the equality before the law of those to whom the law applies.

47 The application is therefore well founded in this respect.

48 As regards the application in so far as it is directed against Article 3 of Regu­ lation No 1778/77, in the circumstances the judgment on Article 3 is the same as that on Articles 1 and 2 of the regulation.

54 In fact, under Article 19 (3) of the basic regulation, a provisional anti­ dumping duty can be imposed only in so far as a margin of dumping and material injury have been found.

55 This would seem to have been the intention of the Council when it provided in Article 3 of the contested regulation that the amounts secured were to be "definitively collected to the extent that they do not exceed the rate of duty fixed in this regulation", in other words the rate of the definitive anti­ dumping duty whose application had been suspended.

56 The application is therefore well founded in this respect as well.

57 Since Article 4 of Regulation No 1778/77 regulates only the entry into force of the preceding provisions there is nothing to prevent this regulation's being annulled in its entirety.

58 It follows from the preceding statements and from the arguments put forward by the applicants in the parallel applications in Cases 113/77, 118/77, 119/77 and 121/77 that Regulation No 1778/77 is unlawful and that the application is therefore well founded.

59 It is therefore necessary, in accordance with the applicant's request, to annul the regulation.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Annuls Council Regulation (EEC) No 1778/77 of 26 July 1977 concerning the application of the anti-dumping duty on ball bearings and tapered roller bearings, originating in Japan;

2. Orders the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings, except for the costs caused by the intervention;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants on account of its intervention.