Language of document : ECLI:EU:T:2009:261

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

9 July 2009 (*)

(Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment)

In Case T‑348/05 INTP,

APPLICATION for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T‑348/05,

JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, established in Kirovo-Chepetsk (Russia), represented by B. Evtimov, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by J.‑P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer,

defendant,

supported by

Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Talabér-Ritz and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents,

intervener,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),

composed of O. Czúcz, President, I. Labucka (Rapporteur) and K. O’Higgins, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

gives the following

Judgment

1        By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 January 2009, the applicant in the main proceedings, JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, applied, pursuant to Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, for interpretation of the first point of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T‑348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council, not published in the ECR (‘the judgment in the main proceedings’).

2        By that judgment, the Court of First Instance annulled Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005, amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1).

3        By its application for interpretation, JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat seeks essentially to obtain from the Court of First Instance an interpretation of the judgment in the main proceedings to the effect that Regulation No 945/2005 was annulled only in so far as it concerns the applicant. It submits that the first paragraph of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings does not contain any special wording that could eliminate the room for interpretation concerning the scope of the effects of the order for annulment in the context of the second paragraph of Article 231 EC and the first paragraph of Article 233 EC and of its effects with respect to third persons who were not parties to the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance. Nor is there anything in the grounds for that judgment that would be capable of eliminating the room for interpretation concerning the scope of the effects of the annulment order.

4        In its observations lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 1 April 2009, the Council of the European Union maintains that the application for interpretation is admissible and well founded.

5        In its observations lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 3 April 2009, the Commission of the European Communities sets out the reasons why it shares the Council’s conclusions.

6        It should noted at the outset that, according to settled case-law, an application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, concern the operative part of the judgment in question, and the essential grounds thereof, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as the Court was required to decide the particular case before it. According to the same line of decisions, an application for interpretation of a judgment is therefore inadmissible where it relates to matters not decided by the judgment concerned or seeks to obtain from the Court in question an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of its judgment (see the orders in Case T‑22/91 INTP Raiola-Denti and Others v Council [1993] ECR II‑817, paragraph 6, and Case T‑573/93 INTP Caballero Montoya v Commission [1997] ECR‑SC I‑A‑271 and II‑761, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

7        In the present case, JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat relies, in support of its application, on the obscurity or ambiguity affecting the first point of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings (see paragraph 3 above). It follows that the application for interpretation must be declared to be admissible.

8        The first point of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation No 945/2005 is annulled in so far as it concerns JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat.

9        Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads or where the circumstances are exceptional, the Court of First Instance may order that the costs be shared or that each party bear its own costs.

10      In the present case, the applicant has not requested costs. The Council and the Commission contend that it would be equitable for each party to bear its own costs, in view of the fact that they agree with the applicant that the judgment in the main proceedings requires an official interpretation by the Court of First Instance.

11      Accordingly, each party should bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

hereby:

1.      Declares that the first point of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 in Case T‑348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council is to be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005, amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is annulled in so far as it concerns JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

2.      Orders JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs;

3.      Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.

Czúcz

Labucka

O’Higgins

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 July 2009.

[Signatures]


* Language of the case: English.