ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
10 November 2014 (*)
(Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty — No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑320/13,
DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd, established in Wujiang City (China), represented initially by L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers, and subsequently by L. Catrain González and E. Wright,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents,
defendant,
ACTION for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5), to the extent that it applies to the applicant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich, President, J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and V. Tomljenović, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Factual and legal background
1 The applicant, DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd, is a company incorporated under Chinese law. It exports solar cells and modules to the European Union.
2 By notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 September 2012 (OJ 2012 C 269, p. 5), the European Commission announced the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in China.
3 The Commission invited, at point 5.1.2.2. of that Notice of Initiation, individual exporting producers in the country concerned, which considered that market economy conditions prevailed for them in respect of the manufacture and sale of the product under investigation, to submit a properly substantiated claim to that effect. Market economy treatment (‘MET’) would be granted only if the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51, ‘the basic regulation’), were fulfilled.
4 On 18 October 2012, the Commission informed the applicant that it had been included in the sample of Chinese exporting producers due to its large production of solar cells (Commission letter of 18 October 2012 (H4/HSC/t12.011380)).
5 By notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 November 2012 (OJ 2012 C 340, p. 13), the Commission announced the initiation of an anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in China.
6 On 13 November 2012, the DelSolar Group submitted its response to the MET questionnaire to the European Commission.
7 After an exchange of correspondence between the parties on the matter, and following verification visits at DelSolar Group sites in China, Taiwan and Italy carried out by the Commission, on 15 March 2013 the Commission notified the application of its provisional findings concerning its claim for MET.
8 On 23 April 2013, the Commission adopted the decision refusing to grant the applicant MET.
9 Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amended Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making those imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5) (‘the contested regulation’).
10 Article 1(2)(i) of the contested regulation imposes a provisional anti-dumping duty of 11.8%, applicable on imports of the goods concerned into the Union and to all Chinese exporting producers, including the applicant, for a period of two months, until 5 August 2013. Under Article 1(2)(ii) of the regulation a provisional anti-dumping duty of 67.9% was imposed on the applicant for the period from 6 August to 5 December 2013. Under Article 1(3) of the regulation the release for free circulation in the Union of the products concerned was made subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.
11 Recitals 64 and 65 in the preamble to the contested regulation, which relate specifically to the claim by the applicant for MET, state:
‘(64) The main substantial comments received concerned the preferential tax regime and grants. Exporters did not contest the facts established, but questioned their importance for the fulfilment of the MET criterion 3. In particular, they argued that State benefits do not represent a significant proportion of their respective turnovers.
(65) It is noted in this regard that an income tax system that treats favourably certain companies deemed strategic by the Government is clearly not one of a market economy. Such a system is still heavily influenced by State planning. It is also noted that distortions introduced by income tax reductions are significant, as they completely change the amount of pre-tax profits the company has to achieve in order to be attractive to investors. The distortions are also permanent, and the absolute benefit received during the investigation period is, because of the nature of the advantage, irrelevant for assessing whether the distortion is ‘significant’. Rather, the assessment of the significance has to be based on the overall impact of the measure on financial and economic situation of the company.’
12 Recital 281 in the preamble to the contested regulation, entitled ‘Final Provision’, states:
‘… the findings concerning the imposition of a duty made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty’.
13 After the present action was brought, by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 209, p. 26), the Commission accepted an undertaking offered by a group of Chinese exporting producers, which had cooperated and are listed in the annex to that decision, together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (‘CCCME’).
14 It is clear from recitals 5 and 6 in the preamble to Decision 2013/423 that, first, the Chinese exporters in question, including the applicant, undertook to adhere to one minimum import price for photovoltaic modules and one for each of their key components (i.e. cells and wafers). Second, they proposed to ensure that the volume of imports made under the undertaking would be at annual levels corresponding roughly to their market performance at the time of making the offer.
15 It is also clear from recital 8 in the preamble to the decision that a provisional anti-dumping duty would be levied on imports above the annual volume level.
16 The contested regulation was amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2013 (OJ 2013 L 209, p. 1) in order to take account of Decision 2013/423. In essence, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled, Article 6 of the regulation, as amended, provides that imports declared for release into free circulation for products currently falling within CN code ex 3818 00 10 (TARIC codes 3818 00 10 11 and 3818 00 10 19), CN code ex 8541 40 90 (TARIC codes 8541 40 90 21, 8541 40 90 29, 8541 40 90 31 and 8541 40 90 39), which are invoiced by companies from which undertakings are accepted by the Commission and whose names are listed in the Annex of Decision 2013/423, are to be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1.
17 Recitals 64 and 65 in the preamble to the contested regulation were not amended by the latter regulation.
18 It is clear from recital 4 in the preamble to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013, confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 214), that, after the adoption of provisional anti-dumping measures, the Commission continued the investigation of dumping, injury and Union interest, and also the parallel anti-subsidy proceedings. Wafers were excluded from the scope of both investigations and, hence, from the scope of the definitive measures.
19 It is clear from recitals 7 to 10 in the preamble to the decision and from Article 1 that subsequent to the definitive disclosure of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy findings, the exporting producers together with the CCCME submitted a notification to amend their initial undertaking offer. The Commission accepted the terms of the undertaking with a view also to eliminating any injurious effects of subsidised imports. In addition, a number of additional exporting producers requested to participate in the undertaking. Furthermore, the CCCME and the exporting producers also requested to revise the undertaking to take account of the exclusion of wafers from the scope of the investigation.
20 According to recital 5 in the preamble to the same decision, the anti-dumping investigation confirmed the provisional findings of injurious dumping.
21 The definitive findings of the investigation are set out in Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1, ‘the definitive regulation’).
22 Recitals 83 to 85 of the definitive regulation, which specifically relate to the applicants claim for MET, state:
‘(83) Following final disclosure, exporters also claimed that the benefits received from preferential tax regime(s) and grants do not represent a significant proportion of their turnover, which is allegedly confirmed by the parallel anti-subsidy investigation.
(84) In this respect, it is recalled that this argument was already addressed in recital (65) to the provisional Regulation. It was stressed that in particular due to the nature of this advantage, the absolute benefit received during the IP is irrelevant for assessing whether the distortion is “significant”. This claim is therefore rejected.
(85) In the absence of other comments regarding the Market Economy Treatment, all determinations in recitals (50) to (69) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.’
23 Under Article 1(2) of the definitive regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 64.9% was imposed on the applicant.
24 Articles 3 and 4 of the definitive regulation give effect to the terms of Implementing Decision 2013/707. Thus, goods currently falling within CN code ex 8541 40 90 (TARIC codes 8541 40 90 21, 8541 40 90 29, 8541 40 90 31 and 8541 40 90 39) which are invoiced by companies from which undertakings have been accepted by the Commission and whose names are listed in the annex to that implementing decision are to be exempt from the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1, if certain conditions are fulfilled.
25 Under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013, a definitive countervailing duty was also imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66).
Procedure
26 The applicant brought the present action by application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 13 June 2013.
27 By separate document of the same date, the applicant applied for the case to be decided under the expedited procedure.
28 By letter of 1 August 2013, the Commission did not oppose adjudication under the expedited procedure, although it expressed its doubts as to whether the present action met the conditions necessary for the application of that procedure.
29 On 23 September 2013, the General Court (Second Chamber) requested the applicant to submit its observations on the impact that the adoption of Regulation No 748/2013 might have on its application. In addition, the parties were invited to submit their observations on a possible stay of the proceedings until 5 December 2013. The parties replied within the prescribed period.
30 The composition of the Chambers of the Court having been altered, the Judge-Rapporteur was attached to the Fifth Chamber, to which this case has therefore been assigned.
31 By decision of 24 October 2013, the Court (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the application for the case to be decided under the expedited procedure.
32 On 30 October 2013, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court decided not to stay the proceedings.
33 On 5 March 2014, the Court (Fifth Chamber) invited the applicant to submit its observations on the impact that the adoption of Implementing Decision No 2013/707 and the definitive regulation might have on its action. The applicant replied within the prescribed period.
34 On 22 May 2014, the Court invited the Commission to submit its observations on the applicant’s response. On the same day, the parties were also invited to submit their observations in relation to a possible decision of no need to adjudicate, in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The parties replied within the prescribed period.
Forms of order sought
35 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested regulation in so far as the latter applies to it;
– order the Commission to pay the costs.
36 The Commission contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
Preliminary observations
37 The applicant stated in its observations on the possible impact of the adoption of Regulation No 748/2013 on its action that it now sought to amend its claim in the present case so that the application for annulment referred to the contested regulation as amended by Regulation No 748/2013, in so far as it applies to the applicant.
38 However, in its reply of 17 December 2013, the applicant limited its claim to the annulment of Regulation No 513/2013. Furthermore, in its later observations, it is this latter regulation, without amendment by Regulation No 748/2013, to which the applicant referred as the ‘contested regulation’.
39 Nevertheless, without there being any need to examine whether the applicant in fact requested the amendment of its claim, or whether such a request is admissible, it suffices to note that in the light of the arguments raised by the applicant, the determination of whether it has a legal interest in bringing proceedings in the present case does not in any way depend upon whether the contested measure is Regulation No 513/2013 in its original version or rather in the version as amended by Regulation No 748/2013.
On the need to adjudicate
40 Under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may at any time, of its own motion, after hearing the parties, decide whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with an action or declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it.
41 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents before it and decides to adjudicate without taking further steps in the proceedings.
42 According to settled case-law, the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the stage of lodging the action, failing which the action will be inadmissible. The purpose of the proceedings must continue to exist, like the interest in bringing proceedings, until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate; this presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it (see judgment of 28 May 2013 in Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, C‑239/12 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:331, paragraph 61 and case-law cited).
43 If the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings disappears in the course of proceedings, a decision of the Court on the merits cannot bring him any benefit (judgment of 7 June 2007 in Wunenburger v Commission, C‑362/05 P, ECR, EU:C:2007:322, paragraph 44).
44 In various circumstances the Court of Justice has acknowledged that an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings does not necessarily disappear because the act challenged by him has ceased to have effect in the course of proceedings. The Court has thus held, in particular, that an applicant may retain an interest in claiming the annulment of a decision either in order to be restored to his original position (judgment of 6 March 1979 in Simmenthal v Commission, 92/78, ECR, EU:C:1979:53, paragraph 32) or in order to induce the author of the contested act to make suitable amendments in the future, and thereby avoid the risk that the unlawfulness alleged in respect of that act will be repeated. In a case between an undertaking, which had been unlawfully excluded from a tender procedure, and the Commission, the Court held that even where, because of the circumstances, it proves impossible to fulfil the obligation, owed by the institution whose act has been annulled, to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling the act, the application for annulment may retain an interest as the basis for possible proceedings for damages (see judgment in Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, cited in paragraph 42 above, EU:C:2013:331, paragraphs 62 to 64 and the case-law cited).
45 It is apparent from that case-law that the question whether an applicant retains his interest in bringing proceedings must be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances, taking account, in particular, of the consequences of the alleged unlawfulness and of the nature of the damage claimed to have been sustained (judgment in Abdulrahim v Council and Commission, cited in paragraph 42 above, EU:C:2013:331, paragraph 65).
46 As regards the applicant’s interest in seeking the annulment of the provisional regulation, the applicant submits, in essence, that although from 6 August 2013 its imports may be subject to an exemption from the payment of anti-dumping duty on condition that they fulfil certain criteria laid down in the undertaking accepted by Decision 2013/423, as amended by Decision 2013/707, it considers that it has an interest in continuing its action for annulment of the contested regulation inasmuch as that regulation rejected its MET claim in order to ensure that the applicant was subject to a correctly calculated anti-dumping duty, which would apply to those of its imports that do not benefit from the exemption from anti-dumping duty established by the definitive regulation or which would apply in the event of a withdrawal of the undertaking accepted in the Implementing Decision 2013/707. The applicant submits that, in the event of such a withdrawal, it would have no right to comment on that matter.
47 The applicant submits that neither Decision 2013/707 nor the definitive regulation affects the ‘substantive provisions’ of the contested regulation.
48 The applicant argues that by adopting the definitive regulation the Council confirmed the findings set out in recitals 64, 65 and 69 to the contested regulation and, hence, the assessment and final rejection by the Commission in the contested regulation of the applicant’s MET claim. Thus, an action directed against the definitive regulation would merely duplicate the present action. The absence of a decision in the present case would breach the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection. Furthermore, consideration of the present case is of importance not only for the applicant, but also for others who might in future request the grant of MET.
49 In that regard, it must be observed that, under Article 2(2) of the definitive regulation, the amounts secured in respect of the provisional anti-dumping duty, for the goods that are listed there, were collected at the rate of the definitive duty imposed. The amounts secured in excess of the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty were released. Under Article 2(1) of the definitive regulation, the amounts deposited in respect of provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the contested regulation on imports of wafers and modules or panels with an output voltage not exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not exceeding 50 W solely for direct use as battery chargers in systems with the same voltage and power characteristics originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China, were also released.
50 It is clear from the settled case-law that, in those circumstances, the applicant may not rely on any legal effect arising from the provisional regulation (judgments of 5 October 1988 in Brother Industries v Commission, 56/85, ECR, EU:C:1988:463, paragraph 6; in Technointorg v Commission and Council, 294/86 and 77/87, ECR, EU:C:1988:470, paragraph 12; of 11 July 1990 in Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, C‑305/86 and C‑160/87, ECR, EU:C:1990:295, paragraphs 14 and 15; of 22 March 2012 in GLS, C‑338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158, paragraph 18; and order of 11 January 2013 in Charron Inox and Almet v Commission and Council, T‑445/11 and T‑88/12, EU:T:2013:4, paragraph 30).
51 It is clear that, following the adoption of the definitive regulation, there is no longer, in principal, any interest in bringing proceedings against the provisional regulation (see, to that effect, judgment in Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 50 above, EU:C:1990:295, paragraph 16; orders of 10 July 1996 in Miwon v Commission, T‑208/95, ECR, EU:T:1996:98, paragraph 20; of 30 June 1998 in BSC Footwear Supplies and others v Commission, T‑73/97, ECR, EU:T:1998:147, paragraph 13; and Charron Inox and Almet v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 50 above, EU:T:2013:4, paragraph 30).
52 Furthermore, the applicant itself stated, in its observations on a possible stay of the proceedings, that it was pending the adoption of definitive measures that the applicant retained an interest in seeking the annulment of the contested regulation.
53 As regards the applicant’s interest in obtaining a declaration of nullity of the provisional regulation in order to ensure effective judicial protection and the application of a correctly calculated anti-dumping duty, if the exemption provided for under Article 6 of the contested regulation, as amended, and under Article 3 of the definitive regulation were not applicable, it must be recalled that the Commission’s role in anti-dumping procedures forms an integral part of the Council’s decision-making process. Thus, the Commission is responsible for carrying out investigations and for deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or to continue them by adopting provisional measures and by proposing that the Council adopt definitive measures. However, it is the Council which has the power to take a final decision. It is not obliged to make any decision at all if it disagrees with the Commission but may, if it wishes, adopt a decision on the basis of the latter’s proposals (judgments of 14 March 1990 in Gestetner Holdings v Council and Commission, C‑156/87, ECR, EU:C:1990:116, paragraph 7, and Nashua Corporation and Others v Commission and Council, C‑133/87 and C‑150/87, ECR, EU:C:1990:115, paragraph 8; order in Miwon v Commission, cited in paragraph 51 above, EU:T:1996:98, paragraph 25).
54 Thus, the applicant had the opportunity to rely on any potential illegality of the contested regulation as a ground for challenging the definitive regulation, if the illegality was reflected there (judgments in Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 50 above, EU:C:1990:295, paragraphs 12 and 69, and of 3 May 2001, Ajinomoto and NutraSweet v Council and Commission, C‑76/98 P and C‑77/98 P, ECR, EU:C:2001:234, paragraphs 65 and 66). That opportunity was open to the applicant even as regards the decisions relating to the grant of MET (judgments of 9 December 2009 in Apache Footwear and Apache II Footwear v Council, T‑1/07, EU:T:2009:483, and of 25 October 2011 in Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, T‑192/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:619).
55 In the present case, both the reasoning and the outcome in relation to the claim for MET contained in the contested regulation were, in essence, adopted in the definitive regulation. The submission alleging a breach of the right to an effective judicial remedy must be rejected since it was open to the applicant to make an application for the annulment of the definitive regulation.
56 As regards the applicant’s interest in seeking the annulment of the provisional regulation as the basis for a claim for damages, it should be observed that the applicant could, in so far as the amounts secured by virtue of the provisional regulation were collected under the definitive regulation, plead the illegality of the definitive regulation in support of a claim for compensation for any loss caused by the provisional regulation. To that extent, the definitive regulation replaced the provisional regulation. The legality of the provisional regulation therefore has no bearing on any claim for damages (see, to that effect, Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 50 above, EU:C:1990:295, paragraph 14).
57 As regards the secured amounts that were released because the rate of the definitive duty was lower than the rate of the provisional duty, it should be noted that the applicant may be regarded as having an interest in securing a declaration of nullity of the provisional regulation as a basis for seeking damages only to the extent that it has claimed damage in connection with the amounts secured. In that respect, it suffices to observe that the applicant has not, at any stage of the proceedings before the Court, claimed to have suffered any such damage (see, to that effect, judgment in Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 50 above, EU:C:1990:295, paragraph 15; orders in BSC Footwear Supplies and others v Commission, cited in paragraph 51 above, EU:T:1998:147, paragraph 15, and Charron Inox and Almet v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 51 above, EU:T:2013:4, paragraph 30).
58 In its application, the applicant also submitted that the rejection of its claim for MET deprived it of the opportunity of applying for an interim review of the anti-dumping duty, under Article 11(3) of the basic regulation, since the Commission in practice requires exporting producers who apply for such a review to demonstrate that they satisfy, prima facie, the criteria for MET, which is a threshold almost impossible to achieve. The applicant submits that the Commission’s practice reveals that only a very limited number of interim reviews are initiated pursuant to requests from Chinese exporting producers. In almost all of these cases, the claim for MET in the interim review was rejected and, consequently, the interim review dismissed.
59 In that regard, it must be observed that the applicant has not submitted that that was the reason why it retained an interest in continuing the present proceedings even after the adoption of the definitive regulation.
60 However, and in any event, first, it should be recalled that both the Court of Justice and the General Court have already rejected analogous arguments seeking to justify an interest in bringing an action for the annulment of a provisional regulation following the adoption of a definitive regulation on the basis of a desire to prevent the Commission from committing with regard to a given applicant the same alleged illegalities in the future (judgment in Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited in paragraph 50 above, EU:C:1990:295, read in the light of the report for the hearing in the same case, and order in BSC Footwear Supplies and Others v Commission, cited in paragraph 51 above, EU:T:1998:147, paragraph 14).
61 Second, an action cannot be justified solely on the basis of the interest that the resolution of the legal questions raised might have for analogous cases in the future (judgment of 19 July 2012 in Council v Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group, C‑337/09 P, EU:C:2012:471, paragraph 50).
62 Third, the case-law cited in paragraph 44 above was developed in circumstances where the interest pursued by the applicants in those cases could not be achieved without bringing an action against the measure contested in each case. By contrast, the applicant’s interest in not being deprived of the chance of requesting an interim review of the anti-dumping duty under Article 11(3) of the basic regulation, could, in common with the other interests that the applicant relied on, be fully protected by bringing an action against the definitive regulation (see paragraph 54 above).
63 Fourth, it should be noted that it is clear from the judgment of 1 October 2009 in Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council (C‑141/08 P, ECR, EU:C:2009:598, paragraph 111) that, in the light of the principles of legality and of sound administration, the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation, under which the determination made by the Commission during the investigation as to the grant of MET is to remain in force throughout the investigation, is not to be interpreted in such a manner as to oblige the Commission to propose to the Council definitive measures that would perpetuate an error made in the original assessment of the substantive criteria to the detriment of the undertaking concerned. It follows that it is possible for the Commission’s decision on the grant of MET and, a fortiori, the reasons for that decision to be amended until the procedure is closed. That conclusion is borne out by recital 281 to the contested regulation, which affirms that the findings concerning the imposition of a duty made for the purposes of that regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive duty.
64 Hence, a decision by the Commission on the grant of MET, taken in context of the provisional regulation, is not definitive.
65 Thus, the adoption of the definitive regulation manifestly excludes any interest of the applicant in continuing the proceedings in the present case.
66 As regards the submission based on the interest in the resolution of the dispute that other persons who might in future request the grant of MET could have, it suffices to recall that it is settled case-law that the interest of a natural or legal person in bringing an action for annulment must be a personal interest (see judgment of 27 January 2000 in BEUC v Commission, T‑256/97, EU:T:2000:21, paragraph 33 and case-law cited).
67 It follows that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
Costs
68 Under Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court. The Court considers that an order that each party should bear its own costs would fairly reflect the circumstances of the case (see to that effect, order in Miwon v Commission, cited in paragraph 51 above, EU:T:1996:98, paragraph 38).
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 10 November 2014.