1On 22 February 1995, the Commission published two notices in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ 1995 C 45, p. 2) initiating anti-dumping proceedings concerning footwear originating in the Far East. The first investigation concerned imports of footwear with textile uppers originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia, whereas the second concerned imports of footwear with leather and synthetic uppers originating in the People's Republic of China, Indonesia and Thailand.
2Following the first investigation, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 165/97 of 28 January 1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with textile uppers originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia (OJ 1997 L 29, p. 3; ‘the contested regulation’ or ‘the provisional regulation’), falling within CN code 64041910 and, with the exception of certain shoes described in Article 1(3) of the regulation, footwear falling within CN code ex64041990 (Taric code 6404199090).
3By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 28 March 1997, the applicants brought this action for the annulment of the provisional regulation.
4By document lodged at the Court Registry on 30 June 1997, the Commission raised an objection to admissibility, on which the applicants submitted their observations on 5 September 1997.
5By document lodged at the Court Registry on 24 June 1997, the Foreign Trade Association requested leave to intervene in support of the applicants. By a document lodged at the registry on 20 August 1997, the Confederation Européenne de l'Industrie de la Chaussure (European Confederation of the Footwear Industry) requested leave to intervene in support of the Commission. The Commission submitted observations on those applications for leave to intervene on 25 July 1997 and 2 September 1997.
6By document lodged at the Court Registry on 5 September 1997, the applicants requested confidential treatment in respect of certain information mentioned in the application. The Commission did not submit any observations in that regard.
7On 29 October 1997 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2155/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with textile uppers originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1997 L 298, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 2155/97’ or ‘the definitive regulation’). The scope of that regulation is, however, narrower than that of the contested regulation, since it does not impose any anti-dumping duty on ‘indoor’ footwear falling within CN code 64041910 (see Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2155/97).
8By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 13 November 1997, the Commission raised a preliminary plea under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that there was no longer any need to adjudicate in Case T-73/97 and applied for an order to that effect. The applicants submitted their observations on that application by a document lodged at the Court Registry on 19 December 1997.
9By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 December 1997, the applicants in Case T-73/97 brought an action for the annulment of Regulation No 2155/97. The action was registered as Case T-598/97.
10The applicants maintain that they retain a legal interest in pursuing the current proceedings, since the scope of Regulation No 2155/97 is narrower than that of the contested regulation. They argue in particular that they have ‘a legal interest in establishing whether the Commission acted lawfully in imposing provisional antidumping duties’ on products, namely footwear falling within CN code 64041910, no longer affected by the definitive regulation, since judicial review by the Court of First Instance:- —
might prevent the Commission from adopting a provisional regulation with equivalent content in the context of the current investigation into leather and synthetic footwear originating in China, Indonesia and Thailand, with which the applicants are concerned;
- —
would allow them to apply for compensation in respect of damage suffered by them through the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on a product excluded from the scope of the definitive regulation.
11The applicants' arguments cannot be accepted.
12Under Article 2 of Regulation No 2155/97, the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty under the contested regulation were definitively collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed, with the particular exception of amounts relating to imports of footwear falling within CN code 64041910, which were released. Moreover, amounts lodged in excess of the definitive rate of antidumping duty were also released.
13In those circumstances, the applicants cannot rely on any legal effect arising from the provisional regulation (Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2945). Consequently, following the Council's adoption of the definitive regulation, the applicants have in principle no further interest in contesting the provisional regulation (order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-208/95 Miwon v Commission [1996] ECR II-635, paragraph 20).
14In its judgment in Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited above, the Court of Justice has already implicitly rejected an argument similar to that put forward by the applicants in this case, to the effect that they have an interest in the provisional regulation being declared unlawful in order to prevent the Commission from committing once again, in another anti-dumping proceeding, the errors which it is alleged to have committed in the present case.
15As for the applicants' argument that a judgment annulling the provisional regulation would enable them to apply for compensation in respect of the damage suffered through the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on products subsequently excluded from the scope of Regulation No 2155/97, the Court observes that they have not, at any stage in the procedure, given particulars of any damage suffered by them concerning amounts lodged by way of security for those products and subsequently released pursuant to the definitive regulation. In those circumstances, the applicants have no interest in challenging the provisional regulation (Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, cited above, paragraph 15).
16It follows from the above that the adoption of Regulation No 2155/97 manifestly removes any interest of the applicants in continuing with the proceedings in this case. There is therefore no need to adjudicate on the action.
17Since there is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action, there is also no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene (see the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-463/93 GUNA v Council [1993] ECR II-1205, paragraph 19).
18Nor, consequently, is there now any need to adjudicate on the applicants' application for confidential treatment.
19Where a case does not proceed to judgment, Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that costs are to be in the Court's discretion.
20The Commission argues that the applicants should be ordered to pay the costs, given that the contested regulation is a provisional regulation, that the applicants always knew that the case would not proceed to judgment, and that they prima facie lacked standing to challenge the regulation in question.
21The Commission's argument cannot be accepted. Since this action was brought before the definitive regulation was adopted, there was nothing to prevent the applicants from challenging the provisional regulation. Moreover, the Council decided to restrict the scope of the definitive anti-dumping regulation in relation to that of the contested regulation. In those circumstances, the Court considers that an order that the Commission pay its own costs and one-half of the applicants' costs will constitute a just reflection of the facts.
22Since there is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene, the applicants to intervene are ordered to bear their own costs.
