ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5 September 2008 (*)
(Removal from the register)
In Case T-466/07,
Osram GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by
R. Bierwagen, lawyer,
applicant,
supported by
Slovak Republic, represented by J. Čorba, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Van der Hout, lawyer,
intervener,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by J.P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers,
defendant,
supported by
Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents,
Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, established at Hangzhou (China), represented by M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers,
Philips Lighting Poland S.A., established in Piła (Poland) and Philips Lighting BV, established in Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by M.‑L. Catrain-González, lawyer, and E. Wright, barrister,
GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), established in Budapest (Hungary), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,
interveners,
ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1).
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 3 July 2008, the applicant informed the Court in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that it wished to discontinue proceedings. The applicant made no application in relation to costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 9 July 2008, the defendant informed the Court that it has no observations on the request to discontinue the proceedings and requested that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant.
3 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 15 July 2008, the intervener, GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.), informed the Court that it has no observations on the request to discontinue the proceedings and requested that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant.
4 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 15 July 2008, the interveners, Philips Lighting Poland S.A. and Philips Lighting BV, informed the Court that they have no observations on the request to discontinue the proceedings and requested that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant.
5 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 18 July 2008, the intervener, the Commission of the European Communities, informed the Court that it has no observations on the request to discontinue the proceedings. It also however submitted that the applicant’s conduct in requesting an expedited procedure and then, after a hearing and shortly before the announced date for delivery of the judgment, withdrawing the case for no apparent reason, rendered the litigation vexatious and unreasonable and it accordingly invited the Court to order the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.
6 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 18 July 2008, the intervener, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, informed the Court that it has no observations on the request to discontinue the proceedings and requested that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant.
7 The first subparagraph of Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. In the present case, the defendant and the interveners other than the Slovak Republic requested that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant.
8 Furthermore, under Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order a party, even if successful, to pay costs which it considers that party to have unreasonably or vexatiously caused the opposing party to incur. In the present case, the Court considers that the Commission’s submission in that regard as set out at paragraph 5 above is well founded and, for the reasons advanced by the Commission, considers that the applicant should be ordered to bear both its own costs and those incurred by the Commission together with those incurred by the defendant and the interveners other than the Slovak Republic.
9 Pursuant to Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Slovak Republic which intervened in support of the applicant, shall bear its own costs.
10 The case will therefore be removed from the register and the applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the defendant, the Commission, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, Philips Lighting Poland SA, Philips Lighting BV and GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.). The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER
OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1. Case T-466/07 is removed from the register of the Court of First Instance.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the defendant, the Commission, Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, Philips Lighting Poland SA, Philips Lighting BV and GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt.).
3. The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 5 September 2008.