ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
17 December 2013(*)
(Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Representative association)
In Case T‑413/13,
City Cycle Industries, established in Colombo (Sri Lanka), represented by T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by R.M. Bierwagen, lawyer,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission, represented by J.-F Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1).
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of M. van der Woude, President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and I. Ulloa Rubio, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 August 2013, the applicant, City Cycle Industries, brought an action for annulment of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1) (‘the contested regulation’).
2 By a separate document accompanying the application, the applicant requested that the Court decide the case under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. By decision of 8 October 2013, the Seventh Chamber of the General Court granted the request for an expedited procedure.
3 The contested regulation was adopted by the Council of the European Union following a request lodged by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) on behalf of In Cycles — Montagem e Comercio de Bicicletas Lda, S.C. EUROSPORT DHS S.A. and MAXCOM Ltd, three bicycle producers of the European Union.
4 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 October 2013, the European Commission sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the defendant. By order of 11 November 2013, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court granted the application to intervene.
5 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 8 November 2013, EBMA sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the defendant.
6 EBMA’s application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
7 The defendant did not submit observations with respect to the application to intervene. By contrast, by document lodged on 15 November 2013, the applicant raised objections to that application.
Law
8 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the Union or between Member States and institutions of the Union, may intervene in that case.
9 According to case-law, a representative association whose object is to protect its members, which seeks leave to intervene in a case raising questions of principle liable to affect those members, establishes such an interest. That broad interpretation of the right to intervene is intended to facilitate assessment of the context of cases while avoiding multiple individual interventions which would compromise the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure (order of the President of the Court of Justice in Case C-151/98 P Pharos v Commission [1998] ECR I-5441, paragraph 6; order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 9 March 2005 in Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 31; and order of the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court of 16 February 2009 in Case T-192/08 Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 10).
10 More specifically, an association may be granted leave to intervene in a case if it represents an appreciable number of operators active in the sector concerned, its objects include that of protecting its members’ interests, the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and the interests of its members may therefore be affected to an appreciable extent by the judgment to be given (Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, paragraph 9 above, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited)
11 Furthermore, it cannot seriously be denied that an association which has brought the complaint on the basis of which the regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties was adopted and has actively participated in the administrative procedure leading to the adoption of that regulation has an interest in the result of the case (Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, paragraph 9 above, paragraph 12).
12 In the present case, it should be noted at the outset that it is not disputed that EBMA has the objective of defending its members’ interests. In that context, it is apparent from that association’s statutes, in particular from Article 3(1) thereof, that EBMA’s purpose, amongst others, is to collect and disseminate information on bicycle imports into the European Union when they threaten the viability of the European bicycle industry and to act with the European institutions and other stakeholders to avoid the circumvention of anti-dumping measures.
13 However, it must be stated, in the first place, that it has not been shown to the requisite legal standard that EBMA represents an appreciable number of bicycle producers of the European Union.
14 First, as is apparent from paragraph 3 above, EBMA filed its request aimed at exposing the circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports originating in the People’s Republic of China on behalf of three bicycle producers of the European Union. However, the contested regulation, just like the application to intervene, contains none of the information necessary for assessment, on the one hand, of the importance of those three producers in the total European production of the product concerned and, on the other, of whether EBMA was a representative at that stage, its creation on 1 September 2012 being however subsequent to that application being filed. In those circumstances, it must be concluded that, at the time the application to intervene was filed, EBMA did not represent, within the meaning of the case-law cited at paragraph 10 above, an appreciable number of operators active in the sector concerned.
15 Second, as correctly stated by the applicant, it is apparent from the statutes furnished by EBMA that none of the three producers on behalf of which it filed the initial application belong to that association. Furthermore, the application to intervene contains no evidence to show that the members of EBMA, as listed in the statutes, amount to a significant part of the bicycle producers of the European Union, within the meaning of the case-law referred to at paragraph 10 above. Consequently, it has also not been shown that EBMA was a representative at the time its application to intervene was filed.
16 In the second place, it should be stated that, although it is not disputed that EBMA correctly filed the request on the basis of which the contested regulation was adopted, it is not apparent from the documents in the case that the members of the association, as listed in the statutes, were involved in any way in that request. Furthermore, there is no concrete evidence, in the contested regulation or in the application to intervene, to show that EBMA, the three undertakings on behalf of which EBMA filed the request or even its members, as listed in the statutes, actively participated in the investigation on the basis of which the Council adopted the contested regulation.
17 It follows from the foregoing that EBMA has not shown that it has a direct and existing interest in the result of the case for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Consequently, its application to intervene must be dismissed.
Costs
18 Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the final judgment or in the order closing the proceedings. Since the present order closes the proceedings so far as EBMA is concerned, the Court must make an order in respect of the costs associated with its application to intervene.
19 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. Since EBMA has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs. As the applicant has made no application for costs, it must also be ordered to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The application to intervene submitted by the association EBMA is dismissed.
2. The association EBMA is ordered to bear its own costs.
3. City Cycle Industries is ordered to bear its own costs in connection with the intervention proceedings of the association EBMA.
Luxembourg, 17 December 2013.
E. Coulon | | M. van der Woude |