1.Even where a discretionary power is conferred on the Community institutions by Community rules for protection against dumped or subsidized imports from non-member countries, the Court is called upon to verify whether those institutions have observed the procedural guarantees afforded by those rules and whether or not they have committed manifest errors in their assessment of the facts, have omitted to take any essential matters into consideration or have based the reasons for their decision on considerations amounting to a misuse of powers .
2.Article 4(1 ) of Regulation No 2176/84 does not in proper circumstances preclude the existence of the injury allegedly sustained by Community industries from being ascertained independently of the two other conditions required for the imposition of anti-dumping duties, namely a definitive finding of dumping and the need to act in the Community interest . Moreover, it is clear from Articles 2 and 4 of the aforementioned regulation that the findings of dumping and of injury are based on different factors which may therefore be analysed separately .
Although Articles 4(1 ) and 12(1 ) of the regulation make the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty conditional on the existence of a causal link between the dumping and the injury suffered by the Community industry, a finding of an absence of injury is sufficient to justify the termination of the proceedings without the imposition of any anti -dumping duty .
3.The excessive duration of a proceeding leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties does not call for a departure from the Community practice for determining the existence of injury adopted by the Commission in the context of the wide discretionary power conferred on it by Article 4 of Regulation No 2176/84 whereby a period of approximately four years is taken into consideration, provided that the period taken covers the six months preceding the initiation of the proceeding and enables the existence of any injury to be established in relation to the time of adoption, if such be the case, of protective measures .
4.The one-year period mentioned in Article 7(9 ) of Regulation No 2176/84 for the conduct of anti-dumping proceedings is a guide rather than a mandatory period . That is borne out both by the wording of the provision in question and by the nature of the anti-dumping proceeding whose progress does not depend solely on the efforts of the Community authorities . However, it follows from that provision that the anti-dumping proceeding must not be extended beyond a reasonable period to be assessed according to the particular circumstances of each case .
( The grounds of this judgment are essentially identical to those contained in the judgment also of 28 November 1989 in Case C-121/86 Epicheiriseon Metalleftikon Viomichanikon kai Naftiliakon and Others v Council (( 1989 )) ECR .)
In Case C-129/86
Hellenic Republic, represented by Yannos Kranidiotis, Special Secretary of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by Stelios Perrakis, Legal Adviser in the European Community Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Eleni Marinou, with an address for service at the office of D . Yannopoulos at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Communities, represented by Erik Stein, Legal Adviser, and by Christos Mavrakos, a member of its Legal Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Joerg Kaeser, Director of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 boulevard Kondrad-Adenauer,
defendant,
APPLICATION under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that Council Decision 86/59/EEC of 6 March 1986 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of dead-burned ( sintered ) natural magnesite originating in the People' s Republic of China and North Korea ( Official Journal 1986, L 70, p . 41 ) and any prior or subsequent related decision, are void,
THE COURT
composed of : O . Due, President, Sir Gordon Slynn and C . N . Kakouris ( Presidents of Chambers ), T . Koopmans, R . Joliet, J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, G . C . Rodríguez Iglesias, F . Grévisse and M . Diez de Velasco, Judges,
( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )
hereby :
( 1)Dismisses the application;
( 2 ) Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
