{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-499-24-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-499-24-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:4d78e83a612c9e01e5ab39f66b514bc6ae88cc45a78acbd8eb964be25ac348f4","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-499-24-p","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"62024CJ0499","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3 September 2026 (\n *1\n )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1","paragraphs":["para_24"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"International law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, entitled ‘Determination of Dumping’, provides:","paragraphs":["para_31"]},{"title":"2.2   …","paragraphs":["para_33","para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"(i)","paragraphs":["para_37"]},{"title":"(ii)","paragraphs":["para_39"]},{"title":"(iii)","paragraphs":["para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46"]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":["para_49","para_50"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 2 of the basic regulation, entitled ‘Determination of dumping’, provides:","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62"]},{"title":"(a)","paragraphs":["para_64"]},{"title":"(b)","paragraphs":["para_66"]},{"title":"(c)","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69"]},{"title":"B. EXPORT PRICE","paragraphs":["para_71"]},{"title":"C. COMPARISON","paragraphs":["para_73","para_74"]},{"title":"(j)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Currency conversions","paragraphs":["para_77","para_78"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘The investigation’, provides:","paragraphs":["para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 16 of that regulation, entitled ‘Verification visits’, is worded as follows:","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"According to Article 18 of that regulation, entitled ‘Non-cooperation’:","paragraphs":["para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97"]},{"title":"Background to the dispute","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118"]},{"title":"The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_121"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_123"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_125"]},{"title":"Forms of order sought by the parties before the Court of Justice","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"By their appeal, the appellants claim that the Court should:","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Commission contends that the Court should:","paragraphs":["para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148"]},{"title":"The appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_151"]},{"title":"The first ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_157"]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_159"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_161"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_164"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_166"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_168"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_170"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_172"]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_174"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_176"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_178"]},{"title":"The second ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_182"]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_184"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_186"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_188"]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_190"]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_192"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_195"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_197"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":["para_199"]},{"title":"37","paragraphs":["para_201"]},{"title":"38","paragraphs":["para_203"]},{"title":"The third ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"39","paragraphs":["para_207"]},{"title":"40","paragraphs":["para_209"]},{"title":"41","paragraphs":["para_211"]},{"title":"42","paragraphs":["para_213"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"43","paragraphs":["para_216"]},{"title":"44","paragraphs":["para_218"]},{"title":"45","paragraphs":["para_220"]},{"title":"46","paragraphs":["para_222"]},{"title":"47","paragraphs":["para_224"]},{"title":"48","paragraphs":["para_226"]},{"title":"49","paragraphs":["para_228"]},{"title":"50","paragraphs":["para_230"]},{"title":"51","paragraphs":["para_232"]},{"title":"52","paragraphs":["para_234"]},{"title":"53","paragraphs":["para_236"]},{"title":"54","paragraphs":["para_238"]},{"title":"55","paragraphs":["para_240"]},{"title":"56","paragraphs":["para_242"]},{"title":"57","paragraphs":["para_244"]},{"title":"The fourth ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"58","paragraphs":["para_248"]},{"title":"59","paragraphs":["para_250"]},{"title":"60","paragraphs":["para_252"]},{"title":"61","paragraphs":["para_254"]},{"title":"62","paragraphs":["para_256"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"63","paragraphs":["para_259"]},{"title":"64","paragraphs":["para_261"]},{"title":"65","paragraphs":["para_263"]},{"title":"66","paragraphs":["para_265"]},{"title":"67","paragraphs":["para_267"]},{"title":"68","paragraphs":["para_269"]},{"title":"69","paragraphs":["para_271"]},{"title":"The fifth ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"70","paragraphs":["para_275"]},{"title":"71","paragraphs":["para_277"]},{"title":"72","paragraphs":["para_279"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"73","paragraphs":["para_282"]},{"title":"74","paragraphs":["para_284"]},{"title":"75","paragraphs":["para_286"]},{"title":"76","paragraphs":["para_288"]},{"title":"The sixth ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"77","paragraphs":["para_292"]},{"title":"78","paragraphs":["para_294"]},{"title":"79","paragraphs":["para_296"]},{"title":"80","paragraphs":["para_298"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"81","paragraphs":["para_301"]},{"title":"82","paragraphs":["para_303"]},{"title":"83","paragraphs":["para_305"]},{"title":"84","paragraphs":["para_307"]},{"title":"85","paragraphs":["para_309"]},{"title":"86","paragraphs":["para_311"]},{"title":"87","paragraphs":["para_313"]},{"title":"88","paragraphs":["para_315"]},{"title":"89","paragraphs":["para_317"]},{"title":"90","paragraphs":["para_319"]},{"title":"91","paragraphs":["para_321"]},{"title":"92","paragraphs":["para_323"]},{"title":"93","paragraphs":["para_325"]},{"title":"94","paragraphs":["para_327"]},{"title":"95","paragraphs":["para_329"]},{"title":"96","paragraphs":["para_331"]},{"title":"97","paragraphs":["para_333"]},{"title":"98","paragraphs":["para_335"]},{"title":"The eighth ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"99","paragraphs":["para_339"]},{"title":"100","paragraphs":["para_341"]},{"title":"101","paragraphs":["para_343"]},{"title":"102","paragraphs":["para_345"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_347"]},{"title":"103","paragraphs":["para_349"]},{"title":"104","paragraphs":["para_351"]},{"title":"105","paragraphs":["para_353"]},{"title":"106","paragraphs":["para_355"]},{"title":"107","paragraphs":["para_357"]},{"title":"108","paragraphs":["para_359","para_360"]},{"title":"109","paragraphs":["para_362"]},{"title":"110","paragraphs":["para_364"]},{"title":"111","paragraphs":["para_366"]},{"title":"112","paragraphs":["para_368"]},{"title":"113","paragraphs":["para_370"]},{"title":"114","paragraphs":["para_372"]},{"title":"115","paragraphs":["para_374"]},{"title":"116","paragraphs":["para_376"]},{"title":"117","paragraphs":["para_378"]},{"title":"118","paragraphs":["para_380"]},{"title":"119","paragraphs":["para_382"]},{"title":"120","paragraphs":["para_384"]},{"title":"121","paragraphs":["para_386"]},{"title":"122","paragraphs":["para_388"]},{"title":"The seventh ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"123","paragraphs":["para_392"]},{"title":"124","paragraphs":["para_394"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"125","paragraphs":["para_397"]},{"title":"126","paragraphs":["para_399"]},{"title":"127","paragraphs":["para_401"]},{"title":"128","paragraphs":["para_403"]},{"title":"129","paragraphs":["para_405"]},{"title":"130","paragraphs":["para_407"]},{"title":"131","paragraphs":["para_409"]},{"title":"132","paragraphs":["para_411"]},{"title":"133","paragraphs":["para_413"]},{"title":"134","paragraphs":["para_415"]},{"title":"135","paragraphs":["para_417"]},{"title":"136","paragraphs":["para_419"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"137","paragraphs":["para_422"]},{"title":"138","paragraphs":["para_424"]},{"title":"139","paragraphs":["para_426"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby:","paragraphs":["para_428"]},{"title":"Dismisses the appeal;","paragraphs":["para_430","para_431"]},{"title":"Regan","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Gratsias","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Smulders","paragraphs":["para_435"]},{"title":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Registrar","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"E. Regan","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Acting President of the Chamber","paragraphs":["para_440"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"62024CJ0499","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"3 September 2026 (\n *1\n )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"(Appeal – Dumping – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100 – Imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Türkiye – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Calculation of the normal value – Fair comparison – Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Article 2(5) – Article 2(10)(j) – Adjustments – Conversion of currencies – Hedging gains and losses – Article 18(3) and (6) – Cooperation of the interested parties)","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑499/24 P,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 17 July 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAŞ , established in Istanbul (Türkiye),","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"İskenderun Demir ve Çelik AŞ , established in Payas (Türkiye),","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Erdemir Çelik Servis Merkezi Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ , established in Gebze (Türkiye),","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"represented by J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, advocaten,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"the other party to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"European Commission , represented initially by G. Gattinara, G. Luengo and J. Zieliński, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"defendant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"composed of E. Regan, acting as President of the Tenth Chamber, D. Gratsias and B. Smulders (Rapporteur), Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Advocate General: R. Norkus,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 November 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"By their appeal, Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAȘ, İskenderun Demir ve Çelik AȘ and Erdemir Çelik Servis Merkezi Sanayi ve Ticaret AȘ (‘Erdemir’, ‘Isdemir’ and ‘Ersem’, respectively), ask the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2024, Er …","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"International law","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"By Council Decision 94/800/EC (of 22 December 1994) concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) ( OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1 ), the Council of the European Union …","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, entitled ‘Determination of Dumping’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"‘2.1   For the purpose of this Agreement, a product is to be considered as being dumped, i.e. introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country.","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"2.2   …","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"2.2.1   Sales of the like product in the domestic market of the exporting country or sales to a third country at prices below per unit (fixed and variable) costs of production plus administrative, selling and general costs may be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of pric …","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"2.2.1.1   For the purpose of paragraph 2, costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reasonably reflect th …","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"2.2.2   For the purpose of paragraph 2, the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits shall be based on actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation. When such amounts cannot be determined on this basis, the amounts may be determined on the basis of:","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"(i)","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"the actual amounts incurred and realized by the exporter or producer in question in respect of production and sales in the domestic market of the country of origin of the same general category of products;","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"(ii)","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by other exporters or producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin;","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"(iii)","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"2.4   A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at the ex-factory level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merit …","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"2.4.1   When the comparison under paragraph 4 requires a conversion of currencies, such conversion should be made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale …, provided that when a sale of foreign currency on forward markets is directly linked to the export sale involved, the rate of exchange in …","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"2.4.2   Subject to the provisions governing fair comparison in paragraph 4, the existence of margins of dumping during the investigation phase shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all comparable export transactions or by a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis. …","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Recital 27 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union ( OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21 ; ‘the basic regulation’) states:","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"‘It is necessary to provide that, where parties do not cooperate satisfactorily, other information may be used to establish findings and that such information may be less favourable to the parties than if they had cooperated.’","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Article 2 of the basic regulation, entitled ‘Determination of dumping’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"‘A. NORMAL VALUE","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"1.   The normal value shall normally be based on the prices paid or payable, in the ordinary course of trade, by independent customers in the exporting country.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"3.   When there are no or insufficient sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade, or where, because of the particular market situation, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value of the like product shall be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the …","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"5.   Costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the party under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the country concerned and that it is shown that the records reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"If costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation are not reasonably reflected in the records of the party concerned, they shall be adjusted or established on the basis of the costs of other producers or exporters in the same country or, where such information is not available or cannot be used, on any other reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Consideration shall be given to evidence submitted on the proper allocation of costs, provided that it is shown that such allocations have been historically utilised. In the absence of a more appropriate method, preference shall be given to the allocation of costs on the basis of turnover. Unless al …","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"6.   The amounts for selling, for general and administrative costs and for profits shall be based on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation. When such amounts cannot be determined on that basis, the amounts may be determined on the basis of:","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"(a)","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for other exporters or producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin;","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"(b)","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"the actual amounts applicable to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the same general category of products for the exporter or producer in question in the domestic market of the country of origin;","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"(c)","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"B. EXPORT PRICE","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"C. COMPARISON","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"10.   A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability. Where …","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"(j)","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Currency conversions","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"When the price comparison requires a conversion of currencies, such conversion shall be made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale, except that, when a sale of foreign currency on forward markets is directly linked to the export sale involved, the rate of exchange in the forward sale shall …","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘The investigation’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"1.   Following the initiation of proceedings, the [European] Commission, acting in cooperation with the Member States, shall commence an investigation at [European] Union level. Such an investigation shall cover both dumping and injury, and they shall be investigated simultaneously.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"For the purpose of a representative finding, an investigation period shall be selected which in the case of dumping shall, normally, cover a period of no less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Information relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period shall, normally, not be taken into account.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"2.   Parties receiving questionnaires used in an anti-dumping investigation shall be given at least 30 days to reply. The time limit for exporters shall be counted from the date of receipt of the questionnaire, which for this purpose shall be deemed to have been received one week from the day on whi …","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Article 16 of that regulation, entitled ‘Verification visits’, is worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"1.   The Commission shall, where it considers it appropriate, carry out visits to examine the records of importers, exporters, traders, agents, producers, trade associations and organisations and to verify information provided on dumping and injury. In the absence of a proper and timely reply, the Commission may choose not to carry out a verification visit.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"2.   The Commission may carry out investigations in third countries as required, provided that it obtains the agreement of the firms concerned, that it notifies the representatives of the government of the country in question and that the latter does not object to the investigation. As soon as the a …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"3.   The firms concerned shall be advised of the nature of the information to be verified during verification visits and of any further information which needs to be provided during such visits, though this does not preclude requests, made during the verification, for further details to be provided in the light of information obtained.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"According to Article 18 of that regulation, entitled ‘Non-cooperation’:","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"‘…","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"3.   Where the information submitted by an interested party is not ideal in all respects, it shall nevertheless not be disregarded, provided that any deficiencies are not such as to cause undue difficulty in arriving at a reasonably accurate finding and that the information is appropriately submitted in good time and is verifiable, and that the party has acted to the best of its ability.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"6.   If an interested party does not cooperate, or cooperates only partially, so that relevant information is thereby withheld, the result of the investigation may be less favourable to the party than if it had cooperated.’","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Background to the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"In paragraphs 2 to 10 of the judgment under appeal, the background to the dispute is summarised as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"‘2.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"The [appellants] are companies incorporated under Turkish law. Erdemir and Isdemir are active in the production and sale of hot-rolled flat products. Ersem is their related trader.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"3.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"On 14 May 2020, the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports into the European Union of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel (“the product concerned”) originating in Türkiye (“the investigation”).","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"4.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"The investigation covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2019 (“the investigation period”). The examination of trends relevant for the purpose of determining injury covered the period from 1 January 2016 to the end of the investigation period. The [appellants] submitted their written observations in the course of the investigation.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"5.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"The [appellants] were selected among the three sampled Turkish exporters and submitted a questionnaire response on 7 July 2020 and a response to a deficiency letter on 26 August 2020 (in the case of Erdemir), on 10 September 2020 (in the case of Isdemir) and on 21 September 2020 (in the case of Ersem).","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"6.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"A remote cross-check was carried out from 28 September to 9 October 2020.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"7.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"On 6 January 2021, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/9 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey ( OJ 2021 L 3, p. 4 ), making the [appellants’] exports of the product concerned to the European Union subject to a provisional anti-dumping duty of 5.4%.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"8.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"On 23 April 2021, the Commission disclosed to the [appellants] the definitive facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose definitive anti-dumping duties.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"9.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"On 6 May 2021, the Commission communicated to the [appellants] an additional final disclosure, under which the anti-dumping duties which it intended to impose on the [appellants] were set at 5%. The [appellants] submitted their observations on that disclosure on 10 May 2021.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"10.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"On 5 July 2021, the Commission adopted the regulation [at issue], imposing an anti-dumping duty of 5% on the imports into the European Union of the product concerned manufactured by the [appellants].’","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 29 September 2021, the appellants brought an action for the annulment of the regulation at issue.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"In support of their action for annulment, the appellants put forward four pleas in law. The first plea alleged infringement of Article 2(5) and of the first to third and fifth sentences of Article 2(10), and of Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation. The second plea alleged infringement of Article …","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"By the judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected those four pleas and, therefore, dismissed the action in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Forms of order sought by the parties before the Court of Justice","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"By their appeal, the appellants claim that the Court should:","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"principally:","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"set aside the judgment under appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"annul the regulation at issue; and","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court; and","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"in the alternative:","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"refer the case back to the General Court; and","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"The Commission contends that the Court should:","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"dismiss the appeal; and","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"order the appellants to pay the costs of the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"The appeal","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"In support of their appeal, the appellants put forward eight grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal alleges a failure to state reasons and infringement of Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, on account of a misinterpretation of the argument put forward by the appellants at first instanc …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"The first ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"By their first ground of appeal, the appellants submit, in essence, that, in paragraphs 45, 47 to 49 and 68 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons, in that it misinterpreted the argument put forward by the appellants at first instance, namely that a conversion of currencies can be carried out only where it is necessary, and misapplied Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"According to the appellants, the General Court examined whether currency conversions were generally necessary, even though the appellants had already converted all transactions not expressed in United States dollars into that currency, which is their accounting currency, for the purpose of booking t …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"However, the General Court did not consider the need for that second conversion of currencies in the light of the criteria which it set out, according to which it is for the Commission to justify the conversions made relating to export sales, domestic sales and production costs. That omission consti …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"The Commission contends that that ground of appeal is unfounded and ineffective.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"According to settled case-law, the statement of the reasons on which a judgment of the General Court is based must clearly and unequivocally disclose the General Court’s reasoning in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken and the Court of Justic …","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Furthermore, under Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, an adjustment in the form of a currency conversion may be made in order to ensure a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value.","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"In the present case, contrary to what the appellants claim, the General Court examined whether the ‘subsequent’ conversion of currencies – which was the ‘second’ conversion referred to by the appellants – was necessary. Before assessing, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, the legality of …","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"In paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that a conversion of currencies was necessary in order to be able to make such a fair comparison, since, as the appellants had acknowledged, their export sales to the European Union had been made in euro and United States dollars, …","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"In doing so, the General Court did not infringe Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation. That provision did not require the Commission to take into account the currency which the appellants declared that they had used for their accounting operations. As the General Court was fully entitled to hold …","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"It follows from those considerations that, contrary to what the appellants claim, the General Court examined specifically, and not in general, whether the ‘second conversion’ carried out by the Commission, namely the conversion into Turkish lira, was necessary in the present case. It also examined specifically whether the evidence produced by the Commission complied with the criteria which it set out, in particular in paragraphs 40, 42 and 43 of the judgment under appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"In doing so, the General Court complied with its obligation to state reasons and did not infringe Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"The first ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal is directed against paragraphs 63, 66, 67 and 70 of the judgment under appeal. That ground of appeal alleges infringement of the obligation to take into consideration the WTO Agreements for the interpretation of the provisions of the basic regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"According to the appellants, it is apparent in particular from paragraph 31 of the judgment of 20 January 2022, Commission v Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube ( C‑891/19 P , EU:C:2022:38 ), that the primacy of international agreements concluded by the European Union requires that secondary EU legislation …","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"By thus unjustifiably refusing to take account of Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as interpreted by the WTO Panels and the WTO Appellate Body, for the purpose of interpreting the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the basic regulation, the General Court ignored the limits placed on …","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Furthermore, the use of the expression ‘on the basis of records’ in Article 2(5) of the basic regulation does not mean that the records can be freely adjusted or processed by the investigating authority. It is true that it follows from the second sentence of the third subparagraph of Article 2(5) of …","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Therefore, the General Court failed to take account of the case-law of the WTO Panels and the WTO Appellate Body in deciding, in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, that ‘the Commission is not obliged to rely, without carrying out any verification, on the records produced by the party concerned during the investigation and … it is not required to use them as such’.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"The Commission contends that that ground of appeal should be rejected, since it is based on a misreading of paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal. Furthermore, that ground of appeal, in so far as it is directed against paragraphs 67 and 70 of that judgment, is ineffective. It is, in any event, the Commission argues, unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"It must be stated that the second ground of appeal is based on a misreading of paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court held that ‘Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, on which the [appellants] rely, contains almost identical wording and therefore has no bearing on the interpretation to be given to the first subparagraph of Article 2(5) of the basic regulation’.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"Contrary to what the appellants claim, it is apparent from that consideration that the General Court did not refuse to take into account Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or the relevant decisions of the WTO Panels or the WTO Appellate Body, but that, on the contrary, it took into consid …","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Furthermore, the General Court cannot be criticised for not having taken into account the relevant WTO decisions relating to the interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that are relied on in the application at first instance. It follows from the judgment under appeal that the …","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"37","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Consequently, it does not follow from the judgment under appeal that the General Court interpreted Article 2(5) of the basic regulation as meaning that the Commission is allowed to disregard the exporting producer’s records without having to adduce proof of a ‘compelling reason’ or that the Commission did not take into consideration those documents in the present case.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"38","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal, which is therefore based on a misreading of the judgment under appeal, must be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"The third ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"39","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"By their third ground of appeal, the appellants complain that the General Court disregarded Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation by concluding, in paragraph 72 of the judgment under appeal, that Article 2(5) of that regulation does not lay down any obligation to use a particular exchange rate.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"40","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"In essence, the appellants claim that the General Court was wrong to hold, when interpreting Article 2(5) of the basic regulation, that there was no obligation as to the exchange rate to be used to convert production costs, whereas, on the one hand, the first sentence of Article 2(10)(j) of that reg …","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"41","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"The Commission contends that the third ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible on the ground, first, that the appellants have not set out with sufficient precision the argument which they are seeking to draw from Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation and, second, that, by relying, for t …","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"42","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"In addition, the Commission submits that that ground of appeal is ineffective, in view of the General Court’s finding set out in paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal, that finding not being disputed by the appellants. In any event, the Commission argues, that ground of appeal should be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"43","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"It follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested …","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"44","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Furthermore, according to settled case-law, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal is limited to review of the findings of law on the pleas and arguments debated before the General Court. A party cannot, therefore, put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in l …","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"45","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"In the present case, as regards the admissibility of the third ground of appeal, it must be held, first, that it sets out, unequivocally, the alleged error and is therefore not imprecise, contrary to what the Commission submits. The appellants indicated the contested paragraph of the judgment under …","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"46","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"Second, in their application initiating proceedings before the General Court, the appellants had argued that the use of a monthly exchange rate instead of a daily rate as referred to in Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, the latter rate having been used by the appellants for their accounting …","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"47","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"It follows from the foregoing considerations that the third ground of appeal is admissible.","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"48","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Moreover, contrary to what the Commission claims, paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal is not sufficient to justify the General Court’s finding that the Commission was entitled to use a monthly exchange rate for the conversions made by that institution in the context of the verification of the appellants’ production costs.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"49","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"As regards the merits of the third ground of appeal, it should be recalled that, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic regulation, the normal value of the like product may, in particular situations, be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"50","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Furthermore, Article 2(5) of the basic regulation provides, inter alia, that costs are normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the party under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the country concerned and tha …","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"51","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"The latter provision does not, however, contain any reference to a conversion of the amount of those costs to be taken into account, which are expressed in a given currency, or, a fortiori, to the type of exchange rate to be used in that conversion.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"52","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Accordingly, the General Court did not err in law in holding that Article 2(5) of the basic regulation does not lay down any obligation to use a particular type of exchange rate.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"53","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"That finding is not called into question by the fact that Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation provides that a fair comparison must be made between the export price and the normal value and that such a comparison may require a conversion of currencies by using, in principle, the rate of exchange …","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"54","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"It is clear from the wording of that provision that the expression ‘rate of exchange on the date of sale’ refers to the price of sales and not to the costs taken into account for the calculation of the normal value.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"55","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"That interpretation is consistent with the interpretation of Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement – that provision corresponding to Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation – which follows from the WTO Panel Report of 22 December 2000 in the case United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stain …","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"56","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"In that regard, it should be noted that that interpretation of Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, set out in paragraphs 6.9 to 6.41 of that report, relates solely to the rule laid down in the first part of the first sentence of Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, according to whic …","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"57","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"It follows from the foregoing considerations that the third ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"The fourth ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"58","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"By their fourth ground of appeal, the appellants dispute that, in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court was entitled to find, first, that they had requested and welcomed the Commission’s use of a monthly exchange rate for both sales and costs and, second, that they themselves …","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"59","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"In that regard, the appellants claim, in essence, that, after challenging, at the provisional stage, the currency conversion carried out by the Commission, they requested a consistent use of the types of exchange rate to convert production and sales costs. After the Commission had changed, at the de …","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"60","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"According to the appellants, it follows from the observations which they submitted after the definitive disclosure stage that they had not requested the use of a monthly exchange rate, but that they had only ‘welcomed’ the use of such a type of exchange rate in so far as that was consistent with the …","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"61","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"Similarly, the finding, in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants had provided a list of data on domestic sales converted using a monthly exchange rate, and the insinuation that the appellants had thus ‘acquiesced’ in the use of a monthly exchange rate, also constitute a dist …","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"62","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"The Commission contends that the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected as ineffective or, in any event, unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"63","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"It must be noted that, according to settled case-law, there is distortion of the evidence, inter alia, where the General Court has manifestly exceeded the limits of a reasonable assessment of that evidence. The distortion must be obvious from the documents in the Court’s file, without there being an …","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"64","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"In the present case, the General Court found, in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, that, ‘during the investigation, the [appellants] expressly requested the Commission to use the same approach for exchange rates for sales and costs by way of a monthly exchange rate. Next, during the adminis …","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"65","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"It must be stated that the appellants have not demonstrated that it was clear from the evidence in the file that they had demanded the use of a daily exchange rate instead of a monthly exchange rate.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"66","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Although it is apparent from their observations on the definitive disclosure that the appellants considered that the production costs used by the Commission did not reflect those of Erdemir and Isdemir as set out in their records, it does not expressly follow from those observations that that alleged discrepancy was the result of a failure to convert on a daily basis.","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"67","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"In addition, in the last sentence of paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that the appellants had provided a list of the data relating to domestic sales that had been converted on the basis of a monthly exchange rate, which is not disputed by the appellants in their appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"68","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"Accordingly, it cannot be held that, in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court exceeded the limits of a reasonable assessment of those observations or that it distorted the evidence submitted for its assessment.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"69","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"The fourth ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"The fifth ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"70","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"By their fifth ground of appeal, the appellants criticise paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal and complain that the General Court imposed on them an excessive burden of proof by requiring the provision of new information on the production costs in Turkish lira.","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"71","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Referring to the judgment of 21 February 2024, Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission ( T‑762/20 , EU:T:2024:113 , paragraph  129 ), according to which the EU institutions are required, inter alia, under the principle of good administration, to indicate to the party requesting an adj …","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"72","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"The Commission contends that the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible, since the appellants are calling into question, in essence, the General Court’s assessment of the facts. The General Court considered, in the exercise of its unfettered discretion, that the appellants had had s …","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"73","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"It should be noted that, according to settled case-law, the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to find the facts or, as a rule, to examine the evidence which the General Court accepted in support of those facts. Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of la …","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"74","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"In paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that, ‘following discussions with the Commission and in particular the prior communication by which the Commission indicated its intention to convert into Turkish lira the data reported by the [appellants] relating to sales and cos …","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"75","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"In doing so, the General Court, contrary to what the appellants claim, did not impose any burden of proof on them when it held that it was for them to provide the Commission with their own conversions, into Turkish lira, of the figures relating to sales and production costs; the General Court merely …","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"76","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Since the fifth ground of appeal is based on a misreading of the judgment under appeal, it must be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"The sixth ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"77","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"By their sixth ground of appeal, the appellants, criticising paragraphs 85 to 87 and 91 to 94 of the judgment under appeal, submit that the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation by focusing on the currencies covered by the hedging contract rather than on the date setting the exchange rate in that contract.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"78","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"According to the appellants, that provision emphasises the date of the exchange rate irrespective of the currencies for which the exchange rate is fixed by the hedging contract. That, they argue, is apparent from the reference to the ‘date of sale’ set out in each of the sentences of that provision. …","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"79","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"Thus, the appellants take the view that, if one were to follow the position that the hedging operations can be taken into consideration only when the operation concerns the currency of the invoice and the conversion currency used by the Commission, it would be too easy for the latter to circumvent t …","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"80","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"The Commission submits that the sixth ground of appeal must be rejected as ineffective, since the appellants have not challenged paragraph 82 of the judgment under appeal. In its view, that ground of appeal is, in any event, unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"81","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"In the first place, the Commission is wrong to allege that the sixth ground of appeal is ineffective on the ground that the appellants have not challenged paragraph 82 of the judgment under appeal. That paragraph merely sets out the content of recital 98 of the regulation at issue, without the General Court carrying out an assessment of its merits, with the result that a failure to challenge that paragraph is not sufficient to render that ground of appeal ineffective.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"82","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"In the second place, as regards the merits of that ground of appeal, it must be noted that, in paragraphs 85 to 87 and 91 to 94 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court endorsed the approach followed by the Commission in the regulation at issue; according to that approach, the hedging contrac …","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"83","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"More specifically, the General Court found, in paragraph 85 of the judgment under appeal, that there had been no hedging for the transactions invoiced in United States dollars, but that there had been hedging only for those invoiced in euro, and that the appellants’ export sales that had been made i …","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"84","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"The appellants submit that that assessment is based on a misinterpretation of Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, in that it focuses on the currencies covered by the hedging contract rather than on the date fixing the exchange rate in that contract, which is, however, referred to in that provision; they argue that it also infringes the effectiveness of that provision.","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"85","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"In that regard, it is necessary, first of all, to recall that, under Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, a fair comparison is to be made between the export price and the normal value. That comparison is to be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, …","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"86","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"The factors for which adjustments may be made include, in point (j) of Article 2(10), currency conversions. That provision states that, when the price comparison requires a conversion of currencies, such conversion is to be made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale, except that, when a sal …","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"87","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"Thus, where a conversion of currencies is necessary in order to make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value, Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation specifies how the exchange rate applicable to that conversion is to be determined. That exchange rate must correspond to the …","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"88","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"Next, it must be noted that Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation gives no indication as to the currency into which the conversion must be made where that conversion is required in order to make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. It follows that, where a conversion o …","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"89","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"Lastly, as the General Court was right to note in paragraph 84 of the judgment under appeal, a hedging contract makes it possible to lock in, at the time the contract is concluded, the exchange rate to be applied to a monetary transaction that will take place on a future date, and thus makes it possible to reduce the financial risk to which a contracting party is exposed as a result of unfavourable fluctuations in exchange rates.","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"90","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"A hedging contract thus fixes an exchange rate for the forward sale within the meaning of Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation.","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"91","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"However, since, as follows from paragraphs 87 and 88 of the present judgment, that provision specifies how the exchange rate applicable to a conversion of currencies should be determined in order to compare the export price and the normal value, but gives no indication as to the choice of the curren …","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"92","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"In order for the Commission to be required to take into consideration the exchange rate fixed by a hedging contract, it is necessary not only that that contract is directly linked to the export sale involved, but also that the currency covered by that contract is also the currency into which that in …","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"93","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"Therefore, contrary to what the appellants claim, it does not follow from the fact that Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation emphasises the date of the exchange rate irrespective of the currencies for which the exchange rate is fixed by the contract that, where an exporting producer has conclude …","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"94","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"In addition, the appellants are wrong to claim that the fact that a hedging contract is to be taken into account only where the transaction concerns the currency of the invoice and the conversion currency that are used by the Commission would amount to allowing that institution to circumvent the obl …","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"95","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"Furthermore, contrary to what the appellants also claim, that interpretation of Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation does not have the effect of allowing the Commission to deprive that obligation of any practical effect. Where that institution considers it appropriate to convert the prices of ex …","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"96","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"Moreover, and more fundamentally, when choosing the currency into which it considers it appropriate to convert the prices in question, the Commission is required, by virtue of the obligation of principle arising from the first sentence of Article 2(10) of that regulation, to ensure that that choice …","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"97","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the General Court did not misinterpret Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation when it held, after finding that the hedging contracts concluded by the appellants fixed an exchange rate between euro and United States dollars, that that rate was irrelevant for the Commission’s conversion of the export sales prices, namely from euro into Turkish lira.","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"98","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"The sixth ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"The eighth ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"99","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"By their eighth ground of appeal, criticising paragraphs 108 to 117 of the judgment under appeal, the appellants complain that the General Court wrongly inferred from the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the General Court, referred to in those paragraphs – that case-law concerning the applica …","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"100","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"The Commission contends that the eighth ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible.","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"101","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"In that regard, that institution submits, in the first place, that the appellants’ claim that the General Court wrongly criticised them for having failed to provide, from the beginning of the anti-dumping procedure, all the information necessary for a proper understanding of their data is manifestly …","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"102","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"The Commission submits that the eighth ground of appeal is, in any event, unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"–  Admissibility","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"103","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"In the first place, it should be noted that the present ground of appeal does not seek to call into question the General Court’s assessment of the facts and evidence provided by the appellants, or its finding, in paragraph 110 of the judgment under appeal, that, in the light of the information provi …","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"104","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"Since the ground of appeal does not therefore call on the Court of Justice to carry out a new assessment of the facts or evidence, but requests it to address a point of law, the Commission’s plea of inadmissibility in that regard must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"105","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"In the second place, it must be noted that it does not constitute a new plea either, on the ground that it is allegedly based on an infringement of Article 18(3) of the basic regulation, which was not raised at first instance.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"106","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"According to settled case-law, an appellant is entitled to lodge an appeal relying on grounds which arise from the judgment under appeal itself and which seek to criticise, in law, its correctness (judgments of 6 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission, C‑4/17 P , EU:C:2018:678 , paragraph  24 , and of 6 October 2021, Sigma Alimentos Exterior v Commission, C‑50/19 P , EU:C:2021:792 , paragraph  39 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"107","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"In the present case, the appellants claim that the General Court relied, in order to reject the first part of the third plea in their action, on case-law relating to the application of Article 18 of the basic regulation. It is in that context that they allege infringement of Article 18(3) of that re …","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"108","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"It follows that the plea of inadmissibility raised in that regard by the Commission must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"–  Substance","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"109","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"In essence, as follows from paragraph 103 of the present judgment, the appellants complain that the General Court infringed Article 18 of the basic regulation, not only in so far as it considered that the appellants were bound, in the present case, by the obligation to provide information resulting …","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"110","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"In that regard, it should be noted that it follows from a combined reading of Articles 6, 16 and 18 of the basic regulation that, when the Commission is investigating whether there is dumping and injury, it must, as a matter of priority, seek to obtain relevant information on the basis of voluntary …","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"111","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"In paragraphs 112 to 114 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court recalled the obligations which, in the context of an anti-dumping investigation, fall on the Commission and on exporting producers, respectively. In particular, referring to case-law precedents which concern the interpretation …","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"112","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"In addition, the General Court referred to the case-law on the interpretation of Article 18(3) and (6) of the basic regulation, which concerns situations where there is insufficient or partial cooperation by the interested parties. Thus, in paragraph 115 of the judgment under appeal, it found that i …","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"113","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"According to Article 18(3) of the basic regulation, where the information submitted by an interested party is not ideal in all respects, it must nevertheless not be disregarded, provided that any deficiencies are not such as to cause undue difficulty in arriving at a reasonably accurate finding and …","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"114","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"It follows from recital 27 of the basic regulation that the EU legislature intended to provide, in that context, that, where parties do not cooperate satisfactorily, other information may be used for the purpose of determining dumping and injury, and that such information may be less favourable to t …","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"115","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"It follows from those considerations that Articles 6 and 16 and Article 18(3) and (6) of the basic regulation, read together, are intended to determine both the extent to which the Commission must take into account the information provided by the party that is under an anti-dumping investigation and …","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"116","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"It follows, first, that, contrary to what the appellants claim, the General Court did not infringe those provisions of the basic regulation, and in particular Article 18 thereof, in finding, in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, that it was for the appellants to provide the Commission, from …","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"117","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"Second, since, in the present case, the General Court found, in paragraph 110 of the judgment under appeal, and without any distortion being alleged in that regard, that the information provided by the appellants, even after the remote cross-check, was not sufficiently clear and had not enabled the …","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"118","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"Accordingly, the General Court cannot be criticised for having infringed Article 18 of the basic regulation, in so far as it applied that provision, or transposed case-law relating to it, to a situation in which it is not applicable.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"119","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Third, the General Court also cannot be criticised for having infringed Article 18(3) of the basic regulation in so far as, even though that provision provides that information that is not ‘ideal in all respects’ cannot be automatically disregarded, it found that the Commission is not required to ta …","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"120","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"It does not follow from the judgment under appeal that the General Court held that the Commission was entitled to refuse to take those data into account. On the contrary, in paragraph 115 of that judgment, the General Court recalled that that institution had to use the information provided for the p …","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"121","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"It follows from the foregoing considerations that, in so far as the eighth ground of appeal alleges that the General Court infringed Article 18(3) of the basic regulation on the basis that it accepted that the Commission was entitled to disregard automatically or to refuse to use certain information that is not sufficiently clear, that eighth ground of appeal is based on a misreading of the judgment under appeal and must be declared unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"122","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Fourth, and lastly, the complaint alleging that there is a risk that the Commission’s duty of diligence and good administration may be nullified must therefore also be rejected, since that complaint is based on the incorrect premiss that the General Court erred in deciding that the Commission is entitled to refuse automatically to use certain information without having to attempt to clarify it.","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"The seventh ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"123","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"By their seventh ground of appeal, criticising paragraphs 116, 117, 122, 124 and 125 of the judgment under appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, in that it responded only in part to the argument which they had put forward in support of …","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"124","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"The Commission contends that the seventh ground of appeal is unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"125","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"According to settled case-law, the statement of the reasons on which a judgment of the General Court is based must clearly and unequivocally disclose the General Court’s reasoning in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken and the Court of Justic …","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"126","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"It must be held that, in paragraphs 96 to 125 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court responded to the argument relating to the possible double-counting of the transport costs linked to Isdemir’s domestic sales, those sales having been made by Erdemir, and stated to the requisite legal standard the reasons for rejecting the first part of the appellants’ third plea.","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"127","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"In that regard, it defined at the outset, in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the judgment under appeal, the scope of the arguments put forward by the appellants in support of that first part, stating that, according to the appellants, in Isdemir’s domestic sales process, those sales were re-invoiced to inde …","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"128","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"In that context, account must be taken of the fact that, in paragraph 115 of their application before the General Court, the appellants submitted that the transport costs initially incurred by Erdemir were re-invoiced to Isdemir and that those costs were taken into account in Isdemir’s SG&A costs. I …","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"129","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"It was therefore by addressing those arguments of the appellants that, as follows from paragraphs 96 and 97 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court considered it necessary to examine the issue of the possible double-counting of transport costs related to those domestic sales as forming part of the SG&A costs declared by Isdemir, in so far as they were included in the ‘group services’ invoiced by Erdemir to Isdemir.","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"130","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"In that context, the General Court first of all stated, in paragraphs 101 and 102 of the judgment under appeal, that it is for the purpose of determining the profitability of domestic sales that the Commission takes into account, where appropriate, the SG&A costs of the related traders, and recalled that the amounts corresponding to those costs and to profits are based on actual data pertaining to production and sales.","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"131","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"The General Court then found, in paragraph 104 of the judgment under appeal, that, in the present case, the Commission had been unable to establish whether the services invoiced actually related to costs incurred in resales on the domestic market, since the recorded transactions or invoices issued w …","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"132","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"Lastly, after finding, in paragraph 112 of the judgment under appeal, that it was not that institution’s role to infer from the replies to the questionnaire and to the deficiency letters that Isdemir’s domestic sales were invoiced through Erdemir, the General Court concluded, in paragraph 117 of tha …","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"133","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"It follows from those considerations that, in the context of its unfettered assessment of the facts, the General Court held that the information provided by the appellants had not enabled the Commission to discern exactly which costs fell within the ‘group services’ invoiced by Erdemir or, therefore …","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"134","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"That statement of reasons thus enables the appellants to know why the General Court did not uphold their arguments and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"135","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"It follows that the seventh ground of appeal, which alleges a failure to state reasons in the judgment under appeal, must be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"136","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"137","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"138","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"Under Article 138(1) of those rules, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"139","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"In the present case, since the Commission has applied for costs and the appellants have been unsuccessful, the appellants must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby:","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"1.","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"Dismisses the appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"2.","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"Orders Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAŞ, İskenderun Demir ve Çelik AŞ and Erdemir Çelik Servis Merkezi Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"Regan","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"Gratsias","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"Smulders","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 September 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"E. Regan","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"Acting President of the Chamber","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_440"}],"word_count":15352,"cites":["C-499/24","T-629/21","C-177/19","C-179/19","C-781/22","C-891/19","C-136/24","C-50/19","C-635/20","T-762/20","C-248/15","C-254/15","C-260/15","C-269/23","C-272/23","C-4/17","C-260/20","C-61/16","C-718/20","C-586/23"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"642c1b16ff69bed1c569c14ecedfe4a545de691a43948cde855accf7e08153b7","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0499","fetched_at":"2026-09-29T04:22:32.518+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-499-24-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-499-24-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-499-24-p","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-499-24-p","verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-499-24-p","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":20,"word_count":15352,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:4d78e83a612c9e01e5ab39f66b514bc6ae88cc45a78acbd8eb964be25ac348f4","version":"legal-2026-11-02","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18","content_hash":"sha256:4d78e83a612c9e01e5ab39f66b514bc6ae88cc45a78acbd8eb964be25ac348f4","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T05:41:01.666Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-499-24-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-499-24-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-499-24-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-499-24-p"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-499-24-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-aa41e08a050a88eeaa94ebac03caaae6","response_hash":"sha256:4d78e83a612c9e01e5ab39f66b514bc6ae88cc45a78acbd8eb964be25ac348f4"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T04:41:02.410Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-499-24-p&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":27651}}