EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0162
Case T-162/09: Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council
Case T-162/09: Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council
Case T-162/09: Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council
OJ C 167, 18.7.2009, p. 13–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.7.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 167/13 |
Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council
(Case T-162/09)
2009/C 167/28
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Adolf Würth GmbH & Co KG (Künzelsau, Germany) and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co Ltd (Shenyang, China) (represented by: M. Karl and M. Mayer, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Forms of order sought
|
— |
Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China; or alternatively |
|
— |
Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as it individually affects the applicants; and |
|
— |
Order the Council to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
On the Commission’s proposal, on 26 January 2009 the Council issued, on the basis of the so-called basic anti-dumping regulation, (1) Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (2).
The applicants claim to be affected by the anti-dumping duties imposed by that regulation and request (in this respect) the annulment of the regulation.
In support of their action, the applicants refer in the first plea to alleged irregularities in the anti-dumping procedure.
In the second to sixth pleas the applicants complain of an infringement of higher-ranking Community law:
|
— |
The Commission did not carefully and impartially investigate all the relevant aspects of the individual case and did not sufficiently investigate the facts of the case, which lead to an infringement of the duty to state reasons in Article 253 EC. |
|
— |
The normal value used in Regulation No 91/2009 was, in breach of Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation No 384/96, investigated in a legally defective manner. |
|
— |
The thresholds for the admissibility of an anti-dumping procedure under Article 5(4), subparagraph 3, were not reached. |
|
— |
The concept ‘like product’ in Article 1(4) of Regulation No 384/96 was stretched in the contested regulation, as the goods concerned produced in the People’s Republic of China and the goods manufactured in the Community are not comparable and are not interchangeable. |
|
— |
There is no injury to Community industry which is necessary for the establishment of anti-dumping duties under Article 1(1) and Article 3 of Regulation No 384/96. |
The applicants claim finally in the seventh plea a misuse of powers on the part of the Community institutions during the examination of the criteria of injury, causality and Community interest.
(1) 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), last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 340, p. 17).