ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
15 December 2005(*)
(Removal from the Register)
In Case T-335/04,
Viz Stal, established in Ekaterinburg (Russia), and
Duferco Commerciale SpA, established in Genova (Italy),
represented by R. Luff and J.-F. Bellis, lawyers,
applicants,
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 T. Scharf and K. Talabér-Ricz, acting as agents,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 990/2004 of 17 May 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia (OJ L 182, p. 5),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER
OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 8 September 2005, the applicant informed the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that it wishes to discontinue the proceedings and requested that its costs be borne by the defendant.
2 The applicant stated that while adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 1371/2005 of 19 August 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel originating in the United States of America and Russia and repealing Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia (OJ L 223, p. 1), the Council repealed the anti-dumping duty imposed pursuant to the contested Council Regulation No 990/2004 and entirely reversed its methodology and corrected the mistakes, which led to the imposition of the antidumping duty on the applicants and formed the basis of their application. According to the applicant, had the Council applied the correct methodologies in the contested Council Regulation, no duty would have been imposed on imports of the product concerned manufactured by VIZ STAL and imported by Duferco.
3 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 7 October 2005, and notified to the other parties on 10 November 2005, the Council indicated to the Court of First Instance that it had no objection to the removal. The Council requested that the applicants be ordered to bear the costs.
4 The Council submits that Regulation No 1371/2005 entered in force on 28 August 2005 and did not have retroactive effect. Therefore, any anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants pursuant to the contested Regulation on imports until 27 August 2005 will not be reimbursed, what would not render the present case purposeless.
5 Furthermore, the Council states that it did not correct any mistakes in the contested Regulation and did not change its methodology. The result of the investigation leading to Regulation No 1371/2005 was different because the factual circumstances had changed or that evidence and information was submitted that was not made available during the investigation leading to the contested Regulation.
6 The Commission did not lodge any observations on the withdrawal.
7 Article 87(5), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure provides that the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings be ordered to bear the costs, if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs shall be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party.
8 In the present case there is no evidence disclosed in the casefile of conduct on the part of the defendant which would justify an order that it bear the costs.
9 In accordance with Article 87(4) of the Rules of procedure provides that Member States and institutions which intervened in the proceedings shall bear their own costs.
10 It is therefore appropriate to order that the applicants bear its own costs and those of the defendant. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER
hereby orders:
1. Case T-335/04 is removed from the register of the Court of First Instance.
2. The applicants shall bear its own costs and those of the defendant.
3. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 15 December 2005.
E.Coulon M. Vilaras