EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0204
Case C-204/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
Case C-204/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
Case C-204/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
OJ C 232, 27.6.2016, p. 5–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.6.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 232/5 |
Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
(Case C-204/16 P)
(2016/C 232/06)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)
Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
|
— |
set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-141/14; |
|
— |
rule on the substance and annul Article 3 of Regulation 1238/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 3 of Regulation 1238/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of antidumping measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious dumping, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 3.
The Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it denies the EU industry a legal remedy in trade defence cases against definitive measures which fail to respect the requirements of the Basic Regulation. In addition, the Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 20 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by putting exporting producers in a better position than the EU industry, as the jurisprudence recognises their right of appeal.
(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China