[:uk]
Analysis of Recent EU Legislation
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2679
The regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2076, focusing on the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family ‘Contec IPA Product Family’. It acknowledges the original authorisation from November 2019 and implements administrative updates and minor changes following notifications from Contec Europe to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Key changes include the incorporation of a new trade name and manufacturers of the active substance, while a change regarding carrier material was rejected. The regulation also updates the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and replaces Annex II for clarity. It is binding across all Member States and will take effect twenty days post-publication in the Official Journal of the EU.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2661
This regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on aluminium radiators imported from China, following an expiry review under EU anti-dumping legislation. The original anti-dumping measures were established in Regulation (EU) No 1039/2012, with duties varying between 12.6% and 61.4%. The review was initiated based on a request highlighting potential injury to the Union industry if the measures lapsed. The regulation defines the product category, assesses dumping likelihood and injury, and establishes Turkey as a representative country for normal value calculation. Ultimately, it maintains anti-dumping measures to protect the Union industry from the adverse impacts of imports from China.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) – C-144/23
This judgment addresses the obligations of national courts regarding references for preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU, particularly in the context of applications for leave to appeal on points of law. The case involves KUBERA contesting customs measures related to intellectual property rights enforcement in Slovenia. The Court ruled that national courts must assess whether they need to refer questions concerning EU law before refusing applications for leave to appeal. Furthermore, when denying such applications, courts must provide reasons for their decisions. This ruling reinforces the collaborative framework of EU law and emphasizes the importance of coherent legal interpretation across Member States, enhancing legal certainty and the protection of rights within the EU legal order.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2679 of 15 October 2024 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2076 as regards administrative and minor changes to the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family Contec IPA Product Family
Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2679
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2679, adopted on 15 October 2024, amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2076 regarding the Union authorisation for the biocidal product family ‘Contec IPA Product Family’. This regulation introduces administrative and minor changes based on notifications and applications submitted by Contec Europe to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
Key Provisions
- Union Authorisation: The regulation references the original authorisation granted on 29 November 2019 (EU-0020460-0000) for the ‘Contec IPA Product Family’, which includes disinfectants classified under Product Types PT02 and PT04.
- Administrative Changes: Contec Europe notified ECHA of administrative changes on 4 August 2021, including the addition of a trade name and manufacturers of the active substance. However, a proposed removal of information on the carrier material was deemed not an administrative change and rejected.
- Minor Changes: An application for a minor change was submitted on 28 February 2022, which involved an extension of the pack size range. The ECHA indicated that the proposed changes met the criteria for minor changes under the biocidal products regulation.
- Agency Opinions: ECHA provided opinions regarding both administrative and minor changes, concluding that most changes were acceptable and that the conditions of Article 19 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 would still be met following the changes.
- Revised Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC): The SPC was updated to reflect all accepted administrative and minor changes, with the Commission agreeing to amend the authorisation accordingly.
- Replacement of Annex II: To enhance clarity and accessibility, Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2076 was entirely replaced, ensuring that all modifications are comprehensively documented in the updated SPC.
- Legal Binding Nature: The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States, reinforcing the regulatory framework governing biocidal products in the EU.
- Entry into Force: The regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Conclusion
This regulation demonstrates the European Commission’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that biocidal products meet safety and efficacy standards while facilitating necessary administrative updates and minor changes to product authorisations.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2661 of 14 October 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Analysis of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2661
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2661 imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium radiators originating from the People’s Republic of China. This regulation follows an expiry review conducted under Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
1. Procedure
The regulation outlines the procedural history, starting with the original anti-dumping measures established by Regulation (EU) No 1039/2012, which imposed duties on aluminium radiator imports from China. These measures were extended following a previous expiry review in 2019, with current duties ranging from 12.6% to 61.4% depending on the exporter.
2. Request for Expiry Review
A request for an expiry review was lodged by the International Association of Aluminium Radiator Manufacturers on 17 October 2023, arguing that the expiry of current measures would likely result in the recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.
3. Investigation and Sampling
The investigation covered the period from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023, examining trends that could indicate the likelihood of continued dumping and injury. The Commission conducted sampling of Union producers, confirming a definitive sample that accounted for over 65% of total production.
4. Product Definition
The regulation defines the product under review as aluminium radiators and their components, specifically excluding electrical radiators and certain classifications under CN codes.
5. Dumping Analysis
The Commission assessed whether dumping occurred during the review period and if it was likely to continue. Due to a lack of cooperation from Chinese producers, findings were based on available facts and data, concluding that significant distortions in the Chinese market warranted the construction of normal value based on undistorted costs from a representative country.
6. Construction of Normal Value
Turkey was chosen as the representative country for establishing the normal value of aluminium radiators based on its economic development, production capacity, and availability of relevant data. The normal value was calculated using undistorted costs of production, including materials, labour, and energy.
7. Likelihood of Recurrence of Dumping
The Commission concluded that there was a significant likelihood of recurrence of dumping should the current measures lapse, based on the substantial spare production capacity in China and the attractiveness of the EU market for Chinese exporters.
8. Injury Analysis
The investigation revealed that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review period, but the potential for injury was assessed based on the likelihood of increased dumped imports should the measures be lifted.
9. Union Interest
The regulation considered the interests of the Union industry, importers, and users. It concluded that maintaining the anti-dumping measures aligns with the interests of the Union industry, which has benefited from the existing duties.
10. Anti-Dumping Measures
The regulation imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on the identified companies, detailing specific rates applicable to different exporters. It also outlines conditions for the application of individual duty rates and the potential for anti-circumvention investigations if patterns of trade change significantly.
In conclusion, the regulation aims to protect the Union industry from the adverse effects of dumped imports of aluminium radiators from China, maintaining the current anti-dumping measures to prevent recurrence of dumping and injury.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2024.KUBERA, trgovanje s hrano in pijačo, d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling – Proceedings relating to the grant of leave to appeal on a point of law to the supreme court of a Member State – Request by the party seeking leave to appeal on a point of law that a question concerning the interpretation of EU law be referred to the Court of Justice – National legislation under which leave to appeal on a point of law is to be granted if the appeal raises a question of law that is important for ensuring legal certainty, the uniform application of the law or its development – Obligation for the national supreme court to consider, in proceedings relating to the grant of leave to appeal on a point of law, whether a reference for a preliminary ruling should be made – Statement of reasons for the decision refusing leave to appeal on a point of law.Case C-144/23.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) – C-144/23
The judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber of the Court on 15 October 2024 addresses critical questions surrounding the obligations of national courts regarding references for preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU, particularly in the context of applications for leave to appeal on points of law.
Legal Context
In this case, KUBERA, a company involved in the trade of food and beverages, contested customs measures taken by the Republic of Slovenia concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The legal framework includes Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, which mandates customs authorities to detain goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights.
The Slovenian legal provisions relevant to the proceedings include Article 22 of the Slovenian Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of rights, and various articles from the Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Code of Civil Procedure), which outline the procedures for appealing decisions on points of law.
Key Questions for Preliminary Ruling
The Supreme Court of Slovenia (Vrhovno sodišče) raised two key questions regarding its obligations under EU law:
- Whether the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU obliges it to consider requests for preliminary rulings when examining applications for leave to appeal on points of law.
- Whether Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires it to provide reasons for its decision when refusing such applications.
Findings of the Court
First Question
The Court ruled that the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU precludes a national court from refusing an application for leave to appeal on a point of law without first assessing whether it is required to refer a question concerning the interpretation or validity of EU law to the Court of Justice. This obligation arises particularly when the outcome of the application depends on significant legal issues related to legal certainty and uniform application of the law.
Second Question
The Court further clarified that when a national court refuses an application for leave to appeal that includes a request for a preliminary ruling, it must provide reasons for not making that reference. The reasons must indicate whether the question is irrelevant, has already been interpreted by the Court of Justice, or is so obvious that no reasonable doubt remains regarding its interpretation.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the collaborative framework established by Article 267 TFEU, ensuring that national courts uphold their responsibilities to engage with EU law effectively. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a coherent legal system across Member States, particularly in cases where national legal proceedings could potentially diverge from established EU law.
The ruling underscores the necessity for national courts to provide clarity and reasoning in their decisions when EU law is implicated, thus enhancing the protection of rights and legal certainty within the EU legal order.[:]
