This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0259
Case C-259/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
Case C-259/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
Case C-259/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
OJ C 254, 3.8.2015, p. 12–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.8.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 254/12 |
Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
(Case C-259/15 P)
(2015/C 254/16)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, agent, R. Bierwagen, C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)
Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, European Commission, Maxcom Ltd
Form of order sought
The Council respectfully requests the Court:
|
— |
that the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Council on 23 March 2015, in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union be set aside; |
|
— |
that the application at first instance brought by Chin Haur Indonesia, PT for the annulment of the Contested Regulation (1) be rejected; and |
|
— |
that Chin Haur Indonesia, PT be ordered to pay the Council’s costs both at first instance and on appeal. |
Alternatively,
|
— |
that the case be referred back to the General Court for reconsideration; |
|
— |
that costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal be reserved. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court misinterprets Article 13 (1) of the Basic Regulation (2) when concluding that the Council did not have sufficient evidence to decide that the Applicant was engaged in transhipment. The General Court's interpretation of the conditions that must be met by individual companies in order to be exempted from the extended measures is in contradiction to the structure of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation (first plea).
The General Court's finding, that on the basis of the documents before the Court, the Council had no evidence from which it could expressly conclude in the Contested Regulation that the Applicant was involved in transshipment operations, lacks proper reasoning. Moreover, and contrary to the judgment under appeal, given that transhipment was correctly demonstrated at country level and that the Applicant's exemption request was not justified, the only conclusion the Council, and subsequently the General Court, could have drawn from the facts was that the Applicant has been involved in transhipment. The General Court, in drawing a different conclusion, distorted the facts (second plea).
(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community