ECJ 1. Under Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court may intervene in that case before the Court, and submissions made in an application for leave to intervene must be limited to supporting the submissions of one of the parties.
Leave to intervene in a dispute concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty must be granted to an undertaking on which a specific anti-dumping duty has been imposed, since that undertaking is individually and directly concerned by the contested regulation and has in that regard an independent right of action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. However, in so far as that undertaking did not bring an action for annulment against that regulation, its rights as intervener must be confined to supporting the forms of order sought by the party on whose side it seeks to intervene.
Undertakings which import the product and in that connection have to pay a specific anti-dumping duty can also demonstrate a direct and present interest in the result of the case.
2. Under indent (f) of the second subparagraph of Article 93(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, every application for leave to intervene must contain a statement of the reasons establishing the intervener’ s right to intervene.
An undertaking which has not established on what grounds it had to or has to pay the above duty has not demonstrated, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, a direct and present interest in the result of a case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty.
[1996] EUECJ C-245/95P
Bailii
Cited by:
Opinion – Commission v NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko ECJ 10-Feb-1998
(Judgment) Appeal – Dumping – Ball bearings originating in Japan – Interpretation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564699