EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CN0226
Case C-226/20 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2020 by Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-835/17, Eurofer v Commission
Case C-226/20 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2020 by Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-835/17, Eurofer v Commission
Case C-226/20 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2020 by Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-835/17, Eurofer v Commission
OJ C 313, 21.9.2020, p. 8–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
21.9.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 313/8 |
Appeal brought on 29 May 2020 by Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-835/17, Eurofer v Commission
(Case C-226/20 P)
(2020/C 313/10)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL (represented by: J. Killick, advocaat, G. Forwood, avocate)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal; |
— |
annul article 2 of the contested regulation (1); |
— |
in the alternative refer the matter back to the General Court; |
— |
order the Commission and the intervener before the General Court to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
1. |
An error of law by interpreting article 3(4) of the basic regulation (2) to mean that the Commission has the discretion to consider that imports representing a market share exceeding 1 % are ‘negligible’. |
2. |
Errors as regards the assessment that ‘the volume of imports’ from Serbia were ‘negligible’ for the purpose of article 3(4) of the basic regulation. Specifically, the General Court committed:
|
3. |
Errors as regards the finding that ‘protective measures are unnecessary’ for the purpose of article 9(2) of the basic regulation. Specifically, the General Court committed:
|
4. |
An error in law in finding that the Commission was not required to disclose data on undercutting and underselling in relation to the Serbian exporter. Specifically, the General Court committed:
|
(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ 2017, L 258, p. 24).
(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).