Judgment_paragraph 87 · Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd v Council of the European Communities (C-69/89)

87That discretion was not exceeded in the present case. Thus, the Council demonstrated convincingly that the injury suffered by the Community industry had to be determined over a period longer than that covered by the investigation into the existence of dumping practices. According to Article 4(2)(c) of the new basic regulation, an examination of injury presupposes a study of ‘actual or potential trends in the relevant economic factors’ which must, therefore, be carried out over a sufficiently long period. The Council also demonstrated that it was justified in taking account of data for the year 1983 in view of the fact that the exclusive rights of Seiko Epson to manufacture printers compatible with IBM personal computers were phased out in 1984, as is expressly stated in recital 104 of the regulation imposing the provisional duty. The year 1983 therefore typifies the situation which existed prior to the opening of a substantial share of the printer market in the wake of the expiry of Seiko Epson's exclusive rights, with the result that the Community authorities did not commit any error of appraisal in selecting that year as their starting point for an evaluation of subsequent developments within the market in question.

Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd v Council of the European Communities (C-69/89)

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections