Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62011TN0596

Case T-596/11: Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Bricmate v Council

OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 63–63 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.1.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/63

Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Bricmate v Council

(Case T-596/11)

(2012/C 25/120)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bricmate AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Dackö, A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—

Declare the action admissible;

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs;

—

In the event the action was rejected as inadmissible or dismissed on merits, order each party to pay its own costs.

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 injury and causation analysis are vitiated by errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment and further, that the European Commission and the Council (referred to as ‘Institutions’) violated the principle of due care and Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘basic anti-dumping regulation’) (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by failing to objectively examine the claims that the data provided by Eurostat had been inaccurate;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

failure to state reasons, violation of the right of defence and further, violation of Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping regulation as regards the differences in the level of processing between ceramic tiles from China and those produced in the EU.
Top