ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
13 July 2012 (*)
(Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Application for confidentiality)
In Case T‑26/12,
PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas),
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti‑dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1).
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 20 January 2012, the applicant brought an action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant’s imports (‘the contested regulation’).
2 By a document lodged at the Court Registry on 27 April 2012, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH (‘the applicants for leave to intervene’) applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council.
3 The application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The Council and the applicant submitted their written observations on that application to intervene by documents lodged at the Court Registry on 21 May and 1 June 2012 respectively. The applicant raised objections to that application being granted.
4 By documents lodged on 1 June and 2 July 2012, the applicant requested that, under Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure, certain confidential information be omitted from the documents communicated to the applicants for leave to intervene. For the purposes of that communication, the applicant produced a non-confidential version of the pleadings and documents in question.
The application to intervene
5 Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the procedure before the General Court under the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, any person which can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the General Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between Member States and institutions of the European Union, may intervene in that case.
6 The concept of an interest in the result of the case must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward (see, to that effect, orders in Joined Cases 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77 Amylum and Others v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 893, paragraphs 7 and 9, and in Case T-15/02 BASF v Commission [2003] ECR II-213, paragraph 26).
7 In the case of, specifically, the anti-dumping field, it cannot seriously be disputed that undertakings which were deemed by the Commission to be part of the European Union industry taken into consideration in the Regulation imposing the definitive anti-dumping duties and which actively participated in the administrative procedure that culminated in the adoption of that regulation have an interest in the result of the case (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 in Case T‑274/07 Zheijiang Harmonic Hardware Products v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11). Since that regulation was adopted further to the finding of injury to the European Union industry, it must be held that those undertakings may be affected by the possible annulment of the regulation at issue (see, to that effect, orders of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2009 in Case T-192/08 Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 15, and of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 9 February 2012 in Case T‑385/11 BP Products North America v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 10).
8 In the present case, it must first be pointed out that the contested regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties further to a finding of dumping which injured the European Union industry.
9 Second, the contested regulation was adopted following a complaint filed by Cognis GmbH and Sasol Olefins & Surfactants. That latter party asserts, without being contradicted by the applicant, that it filed its complaint on behalf of the Sasol group.
10 Third, it is apparent from the contested regulation that Cognis and Sasol Olefins & Surfactants account for a major proportion, in the present case more than 25%, of the total European Union production of the product examined in the investigation. As regards Sasol Germany, it is apparent from the application to intervene that it is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Sasol Olefins & Surfactants which produces fatty alcohols in Germany. It is therefore part of the European Union industry taken into consideration in the contested regulation.
11 Fourth, it is not disputed that Sasol Olefins & Surfactants was actively engaged in the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested regulation and that the injury to the European Union industry was established in that regulation on the basis, inter alia, of the data provided by Sasol Olefins & Surfactants on behalf of the Sasol group.
12 In those circumstances, it must be stated that the applicants for leave to intervene may be affected by the annulment of the contested regulation.
13 It should therefore be concluded that the applicants for leave to intervene have an interest in the result of the case.
14 The applicant’s arguments cannot cast any doubt on that conclusion.
15 First, the applicant notes that the complaint was filed by Sasol Olefins & Surfectants and not by Sasol Germany. The applicant does not however dispute the fact that the complaint was filed on behalf of the Sasol group and, consequently, of Sasol Germany. Since the latter forms part of the European Union industry taken into consideration in the contested regulation, there is no doubt that it has an interest in the result of the dispute.
16 Second, the applicant points out that its action does not call in question the anti-dumping duties imposed on other producers. Accordingly, the efforts of the Sasol group as the party making the complaint would not be thwarted by the possible annulment of the contested regulation. Furthermore, the applicants for leave to intervene have not demonstrated that any specific injury would follow from the removal of the anti-dumping duties imposed on the applicant.
17 In this connection, it must be noted that in the contested regulation the Council declared that the applicant’s exports had contributed to the injury caused to the European Union industry, of which the applicants for leave to intervene form part. Inasmuch as the anti-dumping duties imposed in the contested regulation are intended to remedy that injury, it must be stated that the removal of the duties imposed on the applicant may affect the interests of the applicants for leave to intervene (see order in BP Products North America v Council, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited). The fact that the anti-dumping duties imposed on other producers are not challenged by the applicant does not invalidate that finding. The applicant’s objections are therefore unfounded.
18 Third, the applicant points out that the heads of claim put forward in its action concern only the method of calculating the individual margin of dumping imposed on it. That issue concerns only the applicant, since the applicants for leave to intervene did not provide any useful information in that regard during the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested regulation.
19 It must be stated that those factors cannot affect the interest of the applicants for leave to intervene in the result of the case. That interest must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward (see, inter alia, order in BASF v Commission, paragraph 26). In the present case, the action seeks the annulment of the contested regulation in so far as it imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on the applicant. Since those duties are aimed at protecting the European Union industry, which includes the applicants for leave to intervene, there is no doubt the latter have an interest in the result of the case.
20 In the light of the foregoing, the applicant’s objections must be rejected and the application for leave to intervene must be granted.
21 Since the communication in the Official Journal of the European Union referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure was published on 17 March 2012, the application for leave to intervene was submitted within the six week period prescribed by Article 115(1) of those rules. The applicants for leave to intervene will therefore have the rights granted in Article 116(2) to (4) of the Rules of Procedure.
The application for confidentiality
22 At this stage, the communication to the applicants for leave to intervene of the pleadings served and to be served on the parties must be limited to a non-confidential version. If necessary, a decision on the merits of the application for confidentiality will be taken at a later stage.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH are granted leave to intervene in Case T-26/12 in support of the form of order sought by the Council.
2. The Registrar will communicate to the interveners the non‑confidential version of every document served on the parties.
3. A date shall be fixed by which the interveners may lodge their observations on the application for confidentiality. The decision on the merits of the application for confidentiality is reserved.
4. A date shall be fixed by which the interveners may lodge a statement in intervention without prejudice to their right to lodge a supplementary statement following a decision on the merits of the application for confidential treatment.
5. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 13 July 2012.