EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62006TA0314
Case T-314/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea — Definition of the product concerned — Rights of the defence — Advisory Committee — Duty to state reasons — Choice of the method used to define the product concerned — Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Case T-314/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea — Definition of the product concerned — Rights of the defence — Advisory Committee — Duty to state reasons — Choice of the method used to define the product concerned — Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Case T-314/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea — Definition of the product concerned — Rights of the defence — Advisory Committee — Duty to state reasons — Choice of the method used to define the product concerned — Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.11.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 301/23 |
Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council
(Case T-314/06) (1)
(Dumping - Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea - Definition of the product concerned - Rights of the defence - Advisory Committee - Duty to state reasons - Choice of the method used to define the product concerned - Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
2010/C 301/35
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by: M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)
Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Albenzio, lawyer), and European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and A. Verheyden, lawyers)
Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents) and LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented initially by: L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker, and subsequently by L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)
Re:
Application for the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 2006 L 236, p. 11)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Whirlpool Europe Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and LG Electronics, Inc.; |
|
3. |
Orders the Italian Republic, the European Commission and the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) to bear their own costs. |