EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0142
Case C-142/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission
Case C-142/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission
Case C-142/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission
OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 5–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.6.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 190/5 |
Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission
(Case C-142/15 P)
(2015/C 190/05)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission,
Brandoni solare SpA,
Global Sun Ltd,
Silicio Solar, SAU,
Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA
Form of order sought
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
— |
Set aside the General Court’s Order in Case T-507/13; |
— |
Declare the Application for annulment in Case T-507/13 admissible; and |
— |
Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:
The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly concerned by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (1) because that Decision would not directly affect the legal situation of the Appellant and was subject to implementing measures.
— |
The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly affected by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU because it was implemented by Regulation 748/2013 (2). Regulation 748/2013 is a confirmatory act in relation to Decision 2013/423/EU. The Appellant had therefore standing to appeal Decision 2013/423/EU directly. |
— |
The General Court’s finding that the Decision 2013/423/EU entails implementing measures was erroneous as the General Court did not analyse whether the Commission had any discretion when adopting Regulation 748/2013 or whether the implementation of Decision 2013/423/EU was merely automatic with regard to the Appellant, which in fact was the case. |
(1) Commission Decision 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 L 209, p. 26.
(2) Commission Regulation of 2 August 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on 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 L 209, p. 1.