Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

Alusuisse Italia SpA [hereinafter referred to as Alusuisse] has brought an action before the Court under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1411/81 of 25 May 1981 imposing a provisional antidumping duty on orthoxylene (o-Xylene) originating in Puerto Rico and the United States of America and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2761/81 of 22 September 1981 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on the same product are void.

1. The facts are as follows:

As I have stated, the essential problem posed by this case is that of ascertaining whether the conditions — which are undoubtedly restrictive — to which the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty subjects the admissibility of an application made by an ordinary applicant for a declaration that a measure of the Council or of the Commission is void are met where an action is brought by an importer against a regulation imposing an antidumping duty on the products which he imports into the Community.

In conclusion I can only propose that the Court should dismiss the action brought by Alusuisse against Commission Regulation No 1411/81 and Council Regulation No 2761/81 and order it to pay the costs pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

1 Translated from the French.

2 Case- 113/77 NTN Toyo Bearing Company [1979] ECR 1185, Case 118/77 ISO [1979] ECR 1277, Case 119/77 Nippon Seiko [1979] ECR 1303, Caie 120/77 Koyo Seiko [1979] ECR 1337, Case 121/77 Nachi Fujikoshi [1979] ECR 1363.

3 Judgment of 14 December 1962 in Joined Cases 16 and 17/62, Confédération Nationale des Producteurs de Fruits et Légumes and Others [1962] ECR 471.

4 Joined Cases 789 and 790/79 [1980] ECR 1949.

5 Judgment of 14 December 1962 in the Confédération Case (cited above), at p. 478; judgment of 26 February 1981 in Case 64/80 Giuffrida and Campogrande [1981] ECR 693, at paragraph 3; judgment of 25 March 1982 in Case 45/81 Aíoíje/[1982] ECR 1129, paragraphs 11 and 12.

6 Judgment of 17 June 1980 in Joined Cases 789 and 790/79 Calpak and Others (cited above), at paragraph 9 of the decision; judgment of 26 February 1981 in Case 64/80 Giuffrida and Campogrande (cited above), at p. 479 (the wording is slightly different).

7 [1968] ECR409, at p. 415.

8 Report of 1 September 1981 drawn up on behalf of the Committee on External Economic Relations of the European Parliament on the Community's antidumping activities (Document I-422/81).

9 Case 101/76 [1977] ECR 797, at p. 804.

10 Case 72/74 Union Syndicale-Service Public Européen and Othen [1975] ECR 401.

11 Cf. in particular judgment of 13 May 197! in Joined Cases 41 to 44/70 NV International Fruit Company and Others [1971] ECR 411, at pp. 421 and 422, paragraphs 16 to 21.

12 Case 113/77 NTN Toyo Bearing Company (cited above), at p. 1205.

13 Cf. in particular judgment of 15 July 1963 in Case 25/62 Plaumann 6 Co. [1963] UCR 95, at p. 107.