ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
22 October 2019 (*)
(Appeal — Intervention — Confidentiality — Information treated as confidential at first instance)
In Case C‑666/19 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 9 September 2019,
Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, established in Changzhou (China), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Commission,
defendant at first instance,
Hyet Sweet SAS, established in Gravelines (France),
intervener at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal of the Judge-Rapporteur, K. Jürimäe,
after hearing the Advocate General, E. Tanchev,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 June 2019, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (T‑741/16, not published, EU:T:2019:454), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2016 L 204, p. 92), in so far as it concerns the appellant.
2 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 16 September 2019, Changmao Biochemical Engineering asks the Court to grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis the intervener at first instance, to certain passages in paragraphs 67 and 80 of the appeal, which contain information covered by professional secrecy and correspond to information in respect of which the General Court granted confidential treatment at first instance. To that end, Changmao Biochemical Engineering submits, in annex to its application for confidential treatment before to the Court of Justice, a non-confidential version of the appeal.
3 As regards the passages in paragraph 67 of the appeal for which confidential treatment is requested, they contain the same information as that contained in certain passages in paragraph 96 of the application at first instance to which the General Court, by order of 27 September 2017, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (T‑741/16, not published, EU:T:2017:700), granted confidential treatment.
4 As regards the passages in paragraph 80 of the appeal for which confidential treatment is requested, they contain, with the exception of a clerical error concerning a single figure, the same information as that contained in certain passages of Annexes A.12, A.14 and A.15 to the application at first instance, to which the General Court, by that order, granted confidential treatment.
5 In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 171(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice provides that the appeal is to be served on the other parties to the relevant case before the General Court. Moreover, in accordance with Article 172 of those rules, any party to the relevant case before the General Court having an interest in the appeal being allowed or dismissed may submit a response within 2 months after service of the appeal on that party. It follows from those provisions that the appeal and the other procedural documents lodged before the Court of Justice are also to be served, in principle, on the parties given leave to intervene before the General Court.
6 However, it must be held that, where, as in the present case, a party is requesting, in relation to a party that intervened before the General Court, confidential treatment in respect of material produced before the Court of Justice which has already been treated as confidential in relation to that party in the proceedings at first instance, the same confidential treatment must, in principle, be maintained for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of Justice (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2016, Lundbeck v Commission, C‑591/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:967, paragraph 5).
7 It follows from the foregoing that the application lodged by Changmao Biochemical Engineering asking the Court grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis Hyet Sweet SAS, to the passages of the appeal referred to in paragraph 2 of this order must be granted. Accordingly, only the non-confidential version of that appeal will be served, by the Registrar, on Hyet Sweet.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. Confidential treatment is granted, vis-à-vis Hyet Sweet SAS, to the passages in paragraphs 67 and 80 of the appeal containing information already treated as confidential and contained in the application, and annexes thereto, lodged at first instance by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd in the case that gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 June 2019, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (T‑741/16, not published, EU:T:2019:454), only the non-confidential version of that appeal having to be served, by the Registrar, on Hyet Sweet.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 22 October 2019.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |