Judgment of the Court Third Chamber of 20 May 2021, Renesola UK, C-209/20

• Date: 20 May 2021
• Year: 2021

10

had to be categorised as aiming at an act providing for the interruption or reduction of commercial

relations with one or more third countries for the purposes of Article 215(1) TFEU.

In the second place, it observes that the as sessment of whether the statement of reasons is sufficient

must take account of the relevant context. In their proposed ECI, the applicants referred, explicitly

and repeatedly, to the common commercial policy and to provisions relating to that area, such as

Article 207 TFEU. In the present case, it was therefore for the Commission to explain the reasons

which led it to conclude, implicitly in the contested decision, that the measure aimed at by the

proposed ECI, in the light of its subject matter and objectives, did not fall within the scope of the

common commercial policy and c ould not, therefore, be adopte d on the basis of Article 207 TFEU.

That assessment was of fundamental importance in the Commission decision refusing to register the

proposed ECI since, unlike the CFSP, the common commercial policy is an area in which the

Commission has the power to draw up a proposal for an EU act on the bas is of Article 207 TFEU.

In the third place, the General Court states that the adequacy or otherwise of the statement of

reasons for the conteste d decision must also be assessed in the light of the objectives of the

provisions of the Treaties

13

and the regulation on the citizens’ initiative, consisti ng in encouraging the

participation of citizens in democratic life and making the European Union more acc essible. On

account of those objectives, the Commission was obliged to make clear the reasons justifying the

refusal to register the proposed ECI. In the absence of a full statement of reasons, the Commission’s

objections to the admissibility of the proposed ECI could seriously compromise the possible

submission of a new proposed ECI.

Consequently, the Genera l Court annuls the contested decision owing to an inadequate statement of

reasons.

IV. FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2021, Renesola UK, C -209/20

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Assessment of validity – Implementing Regulation

(EU) No 1357/2013 – Determination of the country of origin of solar modules assembled in a third country

from solar cells manufactured in another third country – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community

Customs Code – Article 24 – Origin of goods whose production involved more than one thi rd country –

Concept of ‘last substantial processing or working’

In 2016, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (United Kingdom) imposed anti-

dumping and countervailing duties on Renesola UK Ltd (‘Renesola’) in respect of the import, into the

United Kingdom, of solar modules assembled in India from solar cells originating in China. Their

imposition was founded, in particular, on Implementing Regulation No 1357/2013,

14

which has the

effect of rendering those duties applicable, inter alia, to solar modules and panels produced in third

countries other than C hina from solar cells coming from China, by classifying solar modules whose

13

Article 11(4) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 24 TFEU.

14

Commission Implementing Regu lation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation ( EEC) No 2454/93 laying down

provisions for the i mplementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 341, p. 47)

(‘Implementing Regulation No 1357/2013’).