Provisional text
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
7 March 2017 (*)
(Intervention at first instance — Confidentiality)
In Case C‑605/16 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 24 November 2016,
Council of the European Union, represented by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
PT Ciliandra Perkasa, established in West Jakarta (Indonesia), represented by F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten,
applicant at first instance,
European Commission,
European Biodiesel Board (EBB), established in Brussels (Belgium),
interveners at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal of the Judge-Rapporteur, C. Lycourgos,
after hearing the Advocate General, M. Wathelet,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, the Council of the European Union asks the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (T‑120/14, EU:T:2016:501), by which the General Court annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) to the extent that it concerns PT Ciliandra Perkasa.
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 December 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa requests the Court to grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), intervener at first instance, to certain material in its application at first instance, which is included as Annex A.2 to the appeal of the Council. To that end, PT Ciliandra Perkasa has produced, in annex to its application for confidential treatment before the Court, a non-confidential version of the document for which that treatment is requested. The material in the application at first instance of PT Ciliandra Perkasa for which confidential treatment is requested concerns the following paragraphs of that application:
– in paragraphs 22 and 24, PT Ciliandra Perkasa’s dumping margin and the difference between that provisional margin and the definitive dumping margin;
– in paragraph 32, the precise percentage of consumption of crude palm oil (‘CPO’) produced in-house by PT Ciliandra Perkasa;
– in paragraph 33, the table summarising the prices at which CPO produced in-house is transferred and those at which CPO produced by related companies is transferred, as well as the names of related parties that supply CPO to PT Ciliandra Perkasa;
– in paragraph 40, the difference between PT Ciliandra Perkasa’s actual transfer prices and the ‘undistorted’ CPO transfer price;
– in paragraph 51, the details in the table summarising the production costs and transfer costs of related CPO suppliers;
– in paragraph 53, the CPO cost of production for PT Ciliandra Perkasa and the difference with the market price established by the EU institutions and the actual purchase price;
– in paragraph 54, the actual profit margin of related CPO suppliers, and
– in paragraphs 56 and 58, the difference between internal transfer prices and transfer prices between related companies.
3 In the proceedings at first instance, the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court, by order of 18 May 2015, granted, on the basis of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, confidential treatment, inter alia, to the same material of PT Ciliandra Perkasa’s application at first instance as is covered by the present application for confidential treatment.
4 Article 171(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court 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 him of the appeal. It follows from those provisions that the appeal and the other procedural documents lodged before the Court are also to be served, in principle, on the parties admitted as interveners before the General Court.
5 However, in line with what was held in paragraph 5 of the order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2016, Lundbeck v Commission (C‑591/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:967), it must be held, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, where one party applies for confidential treatment, vis-à-vis another party that was an intervener before the General Court, for material produced before the Court of Justice that has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings at first instance vis-à-vis that same party, that the same treatment must, in principle, be maintained for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
6 It follows from the foregoing that confidential treatment should be granted, vis-à-vis the EBB, to the material in the application at first instance of PT Ciliandra Perkasa in the case that gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (T‑120/14, EU:T:2016:501), referred to in paragraph 2 of the present order, only the non-confidential version of that application having to be served, by the Registrar, on the EBB.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. Confidential treatment is granted, vis-à-vis the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), to the following material in the application at first instance of PT Ciliandra Perkasa in the case that gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (T‑120/14, EU:T:2016:501), only the non-confidential version of that application having to be served, by the Registrar, on the EBB:
– in paragraphs 22 and 24, PT Ciliandra Perkasa’s dumping margin and the difference between that provisional margin and the definitive dumping margin;
– in paragraph 32, the precise percentage of consumption of crude palm oil produced in-house by PT Ciliandra Perkasa;
– in paragraph 33, the table summarising the prices at which crude palm oil produced in-house is transferred and those at which crude palm oil produced by related companies is transferred, as well as the names of related parties that supply crude palm oil to PT Ciliandra Perkasa;
– in paragraph 40, the difference between PT Ciliandra Perkasa’s actual transfer prices and the ‘undistorted’ crude palm oil transfer price;
– in paragraph 51, the details in the table summarising the production costs and transfer costs of related crude palm oil suppliers;
– in paragraph 53, the crude palm oil cost of production for PT Ciliandra Perkasa and the difference with the market price established by the EU institutions and the actual purchase price;
– in paragraph 54, the actual profit margin of related crude palm oil suppliers, and
– in paragraphs 56 and 58, the difference between internal transfer prices and transfer prices between related companies.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 7 March 2017.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |