Judgment of the General Court First Chamber of 18 May 2022, Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca v Commission, T-245/19

• Date: 18 May 2022
• Year: 2022

36

Next, the Court considers that the scope of the dispute settlement mechanism is dependent on the

definition of the concepts of ‘investment’ and ‘investor’, which are the subject of negotiations.

However, no amendment of the provision laying down those concepts was adopted at that stage. In

addition, the impact that any amendments to those concepts might have on that dispute settlement

mechanism cannot be assessed in the absence of any element making it possible to ascertain, with

some accuracy, the rules governing that mechanism.

In the light of those uncertainties, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient information on

the content and, more particularly, the scope of the provision relating to the dispute settlement

mechanism, as it will appear in the modernised ECT. Therefore, the request for an Opinion appears

premature.

Finally, the Court examines the considerations of expediency, expressed by certain Member States

that intervened in the proceedings, which justify its taking a position on the question of the

compatibility of the dispute settlement mechanism with the Treaties. Those considerations concern,

inter alia, the absence of unanimous interpretation by the Member States as to the application of the

dispute settlement mechanism at issue to disputes between an investor from one Member State and

another Member State and arbitrators’ refusal to find that they have no jurisdiction in such disputes,

in arbitration proceedings based on that mechanism. In that regard, first, the Court finds that such

considerations are unrelated to the purpose of the opinion procedure, since the dispute settlement

mechanism

72

is already in force. Secondly, the Court notes that it has already held

73

that, in

accordance with the principle of the autonomy of EU law,

74

the dispute settlement mechanism

provided for in the ECT is not applicable to disputes between a Member State and an investor of

another Member State concerning an investment made by the latter in the first Member State.

IX. JUDGMENT PREVIOUSLY DELIVERED

COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY: SAFEGUARD MEASURES

Judgment of t he General Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2022, Uzina Metalurgica

Moldoveneasca v Commission, T-245/19

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Safeguard measures – Market for ste el products – Implementing Regulation ( EU) 2019/159 – Action for

annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Standing to bring proceedings – Admissibility – Equal

treatment – Legitimate expectations – Principle of sound a dministration – Duty of care – Threat of serious

injury – Manifest error of assessment – Initiation of a safeguard investigation – Competence of the

Commission – Rights of the defence

In the context of the European Union’s commercial defence policy, the European Commission made

imports of certain steel products originating in certain third countries

75

(‘the product concerned’)

72

As provided for in Article 26 of the ECT.

73

Judgment of 2 September 2021, Republic of Moldova (C-741/19, EU:C:202 1:655, paragraphs 40 to 66).

74

Article 344 TFEU.

75

Commission Imple menting Regulation (EU) 2016/670 of 28 A pril 2016 introducing prior Union s urveillance of imports of certain iron and

steel products originating in certain third countries (OJ 2016 L 115, p. 37).