Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/719 of 14 April 2025 making imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye subject to registration following the reopening of the investigation in order to implement the judgment of 5 February 2025 in case T-122/23 regarding Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union ¹ (‘the basic regulation’), and in particular Article 24 thereof,

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

1.1.   Adoption of measures

• (1) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 ², the Commission imposed definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Türkiye (‘the original investigation’).

• (2) On 4 June 2018, following a partial interim review concerning subsidisation of all exporting producers in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, the Commission decided to maintain the measures as established in the original investigation by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823 ³.

• (3) On 15 May 2020, following a partial interim review, in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658 ⁴, the Commission amended the level of the countervailing duty for one exporting producer.

• (4) On 25 May 2021, following an expiry review in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the Commission extended the measures as established in the original investigation (and as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658) for a further five years by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/823 ⁵.

• (5) On 8 December 2022, following a partial interim review the Commission published Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2390 ⁶ (‘the regulation at issue’).

1.2.   The Judgement of the General Court of the European Union

• (6) On 6 March 2023, Ege İhracatçıları Birliği (Aegean Exporters Association), Akdeniz İhracatçıları Birliği (Mediterranean Exporters Association), İstanbul İhracatçıları Birliği (Istanbul Exporters Association), Doğu Karadeniz İhracatçıları Birliği (Eastern Black Sea Exporters Association), and Denizli İhracatçıları Birliği (Denizli Exporters Association), jointly with their members (‘the applicants’), brought an annulment action before the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) challenging the legality of the regulation at issue.

• (7) In support of their action, the applicants raised seven pleas in law. The first plea alleged infringement of Article 1(1), Article 3(2), Article 5 and Article 7 of the basic Regulation in so far as the Commission failed to carry out an analysis of the pass-through of the subsidy per kilogram of purchased trout.

• (8) The second plea alleged infringement of Article 22(6) of the basic Regulation, in so far as the Commission applied a new methodology for calculating the subsidy amount per kilogram of purchased trout.

• (9) The third plea alleged infringement of Article 1(1), Article 3(2), Article 5 and Article 7 of the basic Regulation, in so far as the Commission made manifest errors of assessment when calculating the subsidy amount per kilogram of purchased trout.

• (10) The fourth plea alleged infringement of Article 22(6) of the basic Regulation, in so far as the Commission amended the methodology for calculating the amount of subsidy per kilogram of purchased trout by including large trout in that calculation.

• (11) The fifth plea alleged infringement of Article 1(1), Article 3(2), Article 5 and Article 7 of the basic Regulation, in so far as the Commission included large trout in the calculation of the subsidy amount per kilogram of purchased trout, even though the countervailing measures did not relate to large trout.

• (12) The sixth plea alleged infringement of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, in so far as the Commission reached the incorrect conclusion that certain export loans granted to Gümüșdoğa Su Ürünleri Üretim İhracat ve İthalat AŞ (‘Gümüșdoğa’) by private banks had to be attributed to the Government of Türkiye.

• (13) The seventh and final plea alleged infringement of Article 5 and Article 7(2) and (4) of the basic Regulation, in so far as the Commission made manifest errors of assessment when calculating Gümüșdoğa’s subsidy rate.

• (14) On 5 February 2025, the General Court issued its judgement ⁷ partially annulling the regulation at issue as far as the applicants are concerned, with the exception of Özpekler İnșaat Taahhüt Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Su Ürünleri Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Șirketi and Selina Balık İșleme Tesisi İthalat İhracat Ticaret AȘ.

• (15) The General Court found that the Commission had made two errors of assessment affecting the amounts of benefit found, namely to the benefit received by way of ‘Exhibition Support’ and to the benefit received by way of ‘Aegean Exporters’ Association support’.

2. GROUND FOR REGISTRATION

• (16) The Commission analysed whether it is appropriate to make the imports of the product concerned subject to registration. In that context, the Commission took the following considerations into account.

• (17) Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgments. In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-subsidy investigations, compliance with the General Court’s judgement consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the General Court is eliminated ⁸.

• (18) According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’), the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred ⁹. That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-subsidy procedure.

• (19) In a situation where for instance a Regulation imposing definitive anti-subsidy measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-subsidy proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order ¹⁰, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.

• (20) As explained in the reopening Notice ¹¹, and since the illegality did not occur at the stage of initiation but at the stage of the investigation, the Commission decided to reopen the interim review and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred.

• (21) According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the resumption of the administrative procedure and the eventual re-imposition of duties cannot be seen as contrary to the rule of non-retroactivity ¹². The Notice of reopening informed interested parties, including importers, that any future liability, if warranted, would emanate from the findings of the re-examination.

• (22) Based on its new findings and the outcome of the reopened investigation, which is unknown at this stage, the Commission may adopt a regulation revising, where warranted, the applicable duty rates. Those revised rates, if any, will take effect as from the date on which the regulation at issue entered into force.

• (23) For this purpose, the Commission requested national customs authorities to await the outcome of the re-examination before deciding on any repayment claim concerning the countervailing duties annulled by the General Court. Customs authorities are thus directed to put on hold any claims for reimbursements of the annulled duties until the outcome of the re-examination is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

• (24) Furthermore, should the reopening investigation lead to the re-imposition of measures, duties should also be collected for the period during which the reopening investigation was carried out.

• (25) In this respect, the Commission notes that registration is a tool provided in Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied against imports from the date of the registration. In the present case, the Commission deems it appropriate to register imports with a view to facilitating the collection of countervailing duties once their levels are revised in line with the General Court ruling ¹³.

• (26) In line with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice ¹⁴, contrary to registration taking place during the period before the adoption of provisional measures, the conditions of Article 16(4) of the basic Regulation are not applicable to the case at hand.

• (27) Indeed, the purpose of registration in the context of Court implementation is not to allow the possible retroactive collection of trade defence measures as envisaged in those provisions. The purpose is rather to safeguard the effectiveness of the measures in place, without undue interruption from the date of entry into force of the regulation at issue until the re-imposition of the corrected duties, by ensuring that the collection of the correct amount of duties is possible in the future.

• (28) In light of the above considerations, the Commission considered that there were grounds for registration pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.

3. REGISTRATION

• (29) On the basis of the above, imports of the product produced by companies listed in Annex must be made subject to registration.

• (30) As indicated in the reopening Notice, the final liability for payment of countervailing duties, if any, from the date of entry into force of the regulation at issue will result from the findings of the re-examination.

• (31) No duties higher than the duties established in the regulation at issue may be collected for the period between the publication of the Notice of reopening and the date of entry into force of the results of the reopening investigation.

• (32) The current countervailing duties applicable to companies listed in Annex range from 3,4 % to 4,4 %,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 April 2025.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

ANNEX

Turkish exporting producers whose imports are to be subject to registration:

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/719/oj

ISSN 1977-0677 (electronic edition)