Dumping - undirboð

Anti-dumping

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

(the 'basic anti-dumping regulation)

Article 1

Principles :

1. An anti-dumping duty may be applied to any dumped product whose release for free circulation in the Community causes injury.
2. A product is to be considered as being dumped if its export price to the Community is less than a comparable price for the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, as established for the exporting country.

[...]

Article 3

Determination of injury

1. Pursuant to this Regulation, the term 'injury' shall, unless otherwise specified, be taken to mean material injury to the Community industry, threat of material injury to the Community industry or material retardation of the establishment of such an industry and shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

[...]

He's just not that into it

From Lasok, K.P.E.: The European Court of Justice: practice and procedure, 2nd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1994), p. 197-198:

"Lack of interest
[...]
There is no express requirement that an applicant should show an interest in having the legality of the act in question reviewed in addition to showing that he falls within the category of potential applications as so defined. Nonetheless, it is well established that the admissibilyti of the action is contingent on there being an interest sometimes called a 'legal' interest, in the result of the case [...]."

In this way, even though a party has locus standi to bring a case before the EC courts, his lac of interest in bringing it is an absolute bar to the proceedings "and may be considered by the Court of its own motion".
[...]
"The interest required to support an application has been described as 'legitimate, present, vested and sufficiently clear' [...] The basic requirement is that the action, if successful, will lead to a change in the applicant's position; [...]"

"[S]ufficient interest may exist if the circumstances are likely to recur, and the judgment will therefore cause the defendant to avoid re-creating or repeating an unlawful situation, or if the judgment will affect other proceedings."

Heimilt að segja fólki upp er það nær ellilífeyrisaldri - C-441/05

Í máli C-441/05, Palacios de la Villa, sem féll fyrr í dag, taldi ECJ að það gæti verið réttlætanlegt að segja mönnum upp þegar þeir næðu eftirlaunaaldri sem kveðið er á um í lögum eða kjarasamningum.

Af ECJBlog.com:

Mr Palacios claimed that his dismissal on the ground that he had attained the compulsory retirement age laid down in a collective agreement was unlawful.

On 18 July 2005, Cortefiel Servicios SA informed Mr Palacios by letter of his dismissal on the basis that he satisfied all the requirements laid down in Article 19 of the Collective Agreement, which provided:

“In the interests of promoting employment, it is agreed that the retirement age will be 65 years unless the worker concerned has not completed the qualifying period required for drawing the retirement pension, in which case the worker may continue in his employment until the completion of that period.’

[The Court] argued that that assessment must evidently apply to instruments of national employment policy designed to improve opportunities for entering the labour market for certain categories of workers.

Therefore, an objective such as that referred to by the legislation at issue must, in principle, be regarded as ‘objectively and reasonably’ justifying ‘within the context of national law’, as provided for by the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, a difference in treatment on grounds of age laid down by the Member States.

The Court furthermore reiterated that Member States and, where appropriate, the social partners at national level enjoyed broad discretion in their choice, not only to pursue a particular aim in the field of social and employment policy, but also in the definition of measures capable of achieving it.

The Court held that it did not appear unreasonable for the authorities of a Member State to take the view that a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings might be appropriate and necessary in order to achieve a legitimate aim in the context of national employment policy, consisting in the promotion of full employment by facilitating access to the labour market.

In the light of those factors, it could not reasonably be maintained that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings was incompatible with the requirements of Directive 2000/78.

The Court found that there was no further need to give a ruling in relation to Article 13 EC – also referred to in the preliminary questions – on the basis of which that directive was adopted.


Text of Judgment

Hinn nýji forseti CFI

Ágætis umfjöllun Bloomberg um Marc Jaeger, fyrsta lúxemborgarann til þess að verða forseti CFI, og 4. forseta CFI frá því dómstigið tók til starfa árið 1989.

Jaeger fæddist árið 1954, starfaði sem lögmaður, saksóknari og héraðsdómari í Lúxemborg, auk þess að kenna við Centre Universitaire de Luxembourg (fyrirrennara Lúxemborgháskóla).

Árið 1986 varð hann lögritari við Evrópudómstólinn og 10 árum seinna dómari við Tribunal de première instance des CE - þar sem hann var kosinn forseti nú nýlega, eins og áður segir.