Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62016TN0211

Case T-211/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 – Caviro Distillerie and others v Commission

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.7.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/41

Action brought on 4 May 2016 – Caviro Distillerie and others v Commission

(Case T-211/16)

(2016/C 260/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy), Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant’Agata sul Santerion, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare the appeal admissible;

—

annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 of 9 February 2016 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd on the grounds of manifest errors of assessment of fact and law vitiating the measure and violations of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community;

—

order the defendant an any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and appraisal of the facts when it selected an unrepresentative sample of EU producers for the purpose of assessing the injury and in doing so also infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by incorrectly assuming that the criterion of the largest EU sales volumes equates to the sample being sufficiently representative.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment and appraisal of the facts in assessing the impact of the dumped imports on the economic situation of the EU industry and in so doing also infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.
Top