This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/326/129
Case T-301/06: Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
Case T-301/06: Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
Case T-301/06: Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 60–60
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/60 |
Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
(Case T-301/06)
(2006/C 326/129)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Lemaître Sécurité SAS (La Walck, France) (represented by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Declare admissible the action for annulment brought by Lemaître Sécurité SAS against the Commission Decision of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding; |
|
— |
Annul the decision of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding; |
|
— |
Order the re-examination of the termination of the anti-dumping proceeding for safety footwear; |
|
— |
Monitor compliance with the judgement of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under Article 233 EC; |
|
— |
Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By Decision 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 (1), the Commission decided to terminate the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap originating in the People's Republic of China and India, after the main complainant withdrew its complaint in consequence of the Commission's letter of 5 July 2006 accepting, after an investigation it had conducted, that there had been dumping of safety footwear but refusing to impose anti-dumping duties on the ground that the European Community had no interest in imposing such duties. The applicant, a European producer of safety footwear claims that, because of the import of footwear from China and India, it is suffering economic and strategic loss in the absence of measures adopted to re-establish fair competition.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
The first plea in law alleges a defective statement of reasons in that, in the applicant's submission, the Commission did not set out, clearly and unequivocally, the reasons why it refuses to adopt anti-dumping measures.
The second plea in law alleges breach of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 384/96 (2), combined with Articles 2 EC, 3(m) EC, 127(2) EC and 157(1) EC, in that the Commission did not, in this case, correctly evaluate the existence of a Community interest in adopting anti-dumping measures.
By its third plea in law, the applicant claims that, by expressly accepting that there had been dumping of safety footwear whilst refusing to adopt measures to correct it, the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17).