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 62011TN0633

    Case T-633/11: Action brought on 8 December 2011 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council

    OJ C 32, 4.2.2012, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.2.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 32/40

    Action brought on 8 December 2011 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council

    (Case T-633/11)

    2012/C 32/79

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Guangdong Kito Ceramics Co. Ltd (Foshan, China), Jingdezhen Kito Ceramic Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China), Jingdezhen Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China) and Zhaoqing Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Sihui, China) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

    —

    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), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has committed a manifest error in the interpretation and application of Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is lacking sufficient reasoning.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading up to the contested regulation was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principle of sound administration, transparency and with the right of defence of the applicants and infringed upon Article 18(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

    (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

    Top