This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0142
Case T-142/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
Case T-142/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
Case T-142/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
OJ C 142, 12.5.2014, p. 42–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 142/42 |
Action brought on 28 February 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
(Case T-142/14)
2014/C 142/55
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
Declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
|
— |
Annul Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 (1); |
|
— |
Join this case with Case T-507/13; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that Article 2 of the contested regulation reflects a manifest error of assessment, and violates Article 13 of the Basic AS Regulation (2) to the extent it exempts from the measures Chinese producers from which the Commission accepted a joint undertaking in violation of the applicants’ right to a fair legal process and the principle of good administration, the applicants’ rights of defence, and Articles 13(4) and 29(2) Basic AS Regulation. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that Article 2 of the contested regulation reflects a manifest error of assessment, and violates Article 13 of the Basic AS Regulation, to the extent it exempts from the measures Chinese producers from which the Commission accepted an unlawful joint undertaking. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the contested regulation violates Article 101(1) TFEU to the extent it grants certain Chinese producers an exemption from the measures in question on the basis of an undertaking offer, accepted and confirmed by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU (3) and by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (4), which is a horizontal price fixing arrangement. |
(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66)
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)
(3) Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 214)
(4) Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 209, p. 26)