C-299/85
ECLI:EU:C:1986:384
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61985CO0299
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
Case 299/85
Tokyo Juki Industrial Co. Ltd v Council and Commission of the European Communities
(Admissibility)
Order of the Court, 15 October 1986 2965
Summary of the Order
Action for a declaration that a measure is void —CouncilRegulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty—Action brought against the Commission — Inadmissibility (EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulations Nos 2176/84 and 1698/85)
In view of the role attributed by Regulation definitive anti-dumping duty an action to No 2176/84 to the Commission in have such a regulation declared void lies proceedings leading to the adoption by the only against the Council which alone has Council of a regulation imposing a the power of decision.
ORDER OF THE COURT 15 October 1986 *
In Case 299/85
Tokyo Juki Industrial Co. Ltd, whose registered office is in Tokyo, Japan, repre sented by Pierre van Ommeslaghe, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 rue Zithe,
* Language of the Case: English.
ORDER OF 15. 10. 1986 — CASE 299/85
applicant,
v
Council of the European Communities, represented by Hans-Jürgen Lambers, Director in its Legal Department and Erik Stein, a Legal Adviser, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office Jörg Käser, Director of the Legal Affairs Department of the European Investment Bank, 100 boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg,
and
Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, John Temple Lang, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Giorgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendants,
APPLICATION for a declaration that Council Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 of 19 June 1985 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan is void.
THE COURT
composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, Y. Galmot, C. Kakouris, T. F. O'Higgins and F. Schockweiler (Presidents of Chambers), G. Bosco, T. Koopmans, O. Due, U. Everling, K. Bahlmann, R. Joliét, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Judges,
Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: P. Heim
makes the following
TOKYO JUKI INDUSTRIAL v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
ORDER
Facts and Issues
By an application lodged at the Court By a document lodged at the Court Registry Registry on 4 October 1985 Tokyo Juki on 2 December 1985 the applicant replied to Industrial Co. Ltd brought an action against the Commission's objection by contending the Council and Commission of the that the Council had acted on a proposal European Communities for a declaration from the Commission and had adopted the that Council Regulation No 1698/85 of 19 contested regulation on the basis of the June 1985 imposing a definitive anti results of an inquiry which the Commission dumping duty on imports of electronic had conducted. typewriters originating in Japan was void. It added that if the Commission were By a document lodged at the Court Registry regarded as a defendant certain procedural on 23 October 1985, the Commission raised difficulties might be avoided. an objection of inadmissibility under Article 91 (1) of the Rules of Procedure whereby it On 20 January 1986 the Council adopted sought a declaration that the application Regulation No 113/86 (Official Journal was inadmissible in so far as it was directed 1986, L 17, p. 2) revoking retroactively against the Commission. It relies in support Regulation No 1698/85 in relation to of its submissions on the Order made by the Tokyo Juki. Court on 8 May 1985 in Case 256/84 Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v Council and Commission of The applicant has nevertheless not the European Communities. withdrawn its application.
Decision
Under Article 91 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the remainder of the proceedings relating to the objection raised is to be oral unless the Court decides otherwise. In this case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information and that there is thus no need to open the oral procedure.
The conclusions in the application refer expressly and exclusively to Council Regu lation No 1698/85 of 19 June 1985.
Furthermore, the Court observes that the Commission's role is situated in the context of the Council's decision-making process. It appears from the provisions of Council Regulation No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic
ORDER OF 15. 10. 1986 — CASE 299/85
Community (Official Journal 1984, L 201, p. 1), on the basis of which the regu lation at issue was adopted, that the Commission is responsible for carrying out the investigations and for deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or to continue them by adopting provisional measures and by proposing that the Council adopt definitive measures. However, the power of decision belongs to the Council, which may refrain from taking any decision at all if it disagrees with the Commission or may, on the contrary, adopt a decision on the basis of the latter's proposals.
Consequently, the application is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
(1) The application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission.
(2) The applicant shall pay the costs occasioned by the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in pursuance of Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure.
Luxembourg, 15 October 1986.
P. Heim A. J. Mackenzie Stuart Registrar President