ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
2 September 2020(*)
(Appeal – Intervention – Confidentiality – Information treated as confidential at first instance)
In Case C–79/20 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 14 February 2020,
Yieh United Steel Corp., established in Kaohsiung City (Taiwan), represented by D. Luff, avocat,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Commission, represented by A. Demeneix, M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
Association européenne de l’acier AISBL (Eurofer), established in Brussels (Belgium),
intervener at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, A. Prechal,
after hearing the Advocate General, G. Pitruzzella,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, Yieh United Steel Corp. seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 December 2019, Yieh United Steel v Commission (T‑607/15, EU:T:2019:831, ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10).
2 By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 20 February 2020, Yieh United Steel requests that the Court treat as confidential, with respect to Association européenne de l’acier AISBL (Eurofer), intervener at first instance, first, information in paragraph 31 of its appeal, on the ground that that information, communicated to the European Commission in the course of the anti-dumping investigation, concerns its turnover in relation to domestic sales of the product concerned and is confidential by nature.
3 Second, Yieh United Steel requests that the Court communicate to the intervener at first instance only the non-confidential version of the following documents which are annexed to its appeal and listed as follows:
– Annex A-1 containing the non-confidential version of the judgment under appeal;
– Annex A-4 containing the non-confidential version of the application at first instance lodged by Yieh United Steel before the General Court;
– Annex A-5 containing the non-confidential version of the reply lodged by Yieh United Steel before the General Court;
– Annex A-6 containing the non-confidential version of the written pleading lodged by Yieh United Steel before the General Court in response to the statement in intervention lodged by the intervener at first instance;
– Annex A-7 containing the non-confidential version of the written pleading lodged by Yieh United Steel before the General Court in response to the supplementary statement in intervention lodged by the intervener at first instance; and
– Annex A-8 containing the non-confidential version of the response by Yieh United Steel to the questions put by the General Court.
4 The Commission did not make any observations on that request for confidential treatment.
5 As regards the passage in paragraph 31 of the appeal in respect of which confidential treatment is sought, this contains the same information as that in respect of which confidential treatment has already been granted by the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court, by order of 27 September 2017, Yieh United Steel v Commission (T‑607/15, not published, EU:T:2017:698), as is confirmed by paragraph 78 of the non-confidential version of the judgment under appeal, from which the information concerned has been omitted.
6 As regards the request that only the non-confidential version of Annexes A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8 to the appeal be communicated to the intervener at first instance, it must be noted that this request actually seeks to ensure that the documents communicated to the intervener at first instance are only those that have already been subject to confidential treatment in accordance with the order referred to in the preceding paragraph, with a view to being served on the intervener at first instance in that non-confidential form by the Registrar of the General Court to enable the intervener at first instance to submit any observations supplementary to the statement in intervention it lodged at the General Court Registry on 10 October 2016.
7 The document contained in Annex A-1 to the appeal is the non-confidential version of the judgment under appeal, in which the information the confidential treatment of which was authorised by the order of the General Court of 27 September 2017, Yieh United Steel v Commission (T‑607/15, not published, EU:T:2017:698), does not appear or appears in a form that guarantees its confidentiality.
8 It follows that all the documents to which the present request for confidential treatment relates have already been subject to such treatment, as duly authorised by the General Court.
9 It should be recalled in that regard 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 two months after service on that party of the appeal. 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.
10 However, it is settled case-law 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 same 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 (order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2020, ChangmaoBiochemical Engineering v Commission, C‑666/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:213, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited).
11 It follows from the foregoing that Yieh United Steele’s request that the Court treat the information contained in paragraph 31 of its appeal as confidential vis-à-vis the intervener at first instance must be granted. Accordingly, only a non-confidential version of that document, omitting that information, will be served on that intervener by the Registrar. In addition, only the non-confidential versions of Annexes A-1, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8 to the appeal of Yieh United Steel, referred to in paragraph 3 of the present order, in the form resulting from the confidential treatment granted by the order of the General Court of 27 September 2017, Yieh United Steel v Commission (T‑607/15, not published, EU:T:2017:698), will be served on the intervener at first instance by the Registrar.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. The information contained in paragraph 31 of the appeal of Yieh United Steel Corp. shall be treated as confidential vis-à-vis Association européenne de l’acier AISBL (Eurofer). The Registrar shall arrange for only a non-confidential version of that appeal, omitting that information, to be served on Association européenne de l’acier AISBL (Eurofer).
2. The Registrar shall arrange for only the non-confidential versions of Annexes A-1, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8 to the appeal of Yieh United Steel Corp., in the form resulting from the confidential treatment granted by the order of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2017, Yieh United Steel v Commission (T‑607/15, not published, EU:T:2017:698), to be served on Association européenne de l’acier AISBL (Eurofer).
3. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 2 September 2020.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |