—

Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure on two aspects of the case;

—

Annul Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1788 (1) by which the Commission suspends the effects of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (2);

—

Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs incurred by the application.

1.

First plea in law, alleging the Commission acted in breach of Regulation 2016/1036 (3), and in particular Article 14(4) thereof. In particular, the Commission failed to examine the issue of injury as provided for in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, but only examined a limited and reduced number of injury indicators. In addition, the Commission did not carry out a Union Interest evaluation. Moreover, the Commission failed to consider the Union’s decarbonisation policy and imposed on itself a deadline which was not provided for in law. Finally, the Commission erred in the legal test to be applied with respect to the resumption of injury.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the Commission acted in breach of the principles of due process and good administration. In particular, the Commission’s overall conduct of the suspension investigation was deficient and the suspension investigation has not been legally or factually initiated. In addition, the Commission imposed unnecessary time limits so as to meet an unreasonable and unnecessary deadline. Moreover, the Commission acted inconsistently in borrowing the concept of disclosure which applies to new and review investigations but not the deadlines which apply to those investigations. Finally, the assessment of the Union interest was not disclosed to parties and parties could not comment on it.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the Commission acted in breach of Article 296 TFEU by failing to adequately state reasons. In particular, the Commission failed to adequately state why it was necessary to set the deadline for the conclusion of the suspension investigation at the same time as the anti-dumping investigation. Moreover, the Commission did not give sufficient reasons why it was in the Union Interest to suspend measures.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the Commission manifestly erred in assessing the facts. In particular, the Commission erred in the examination of the changed market conditions; in the examination of the ability of the Union industry to supply the market; in the examination of data on production outside the EU; and in the examination of supply and demand.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the Commission made an inappropriate use of the suspension provision. The Commission misused its power by granting suspension as an alternative to unsuccessful applications to exclude products from the product scope.