This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0100
Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
Case C-100/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
OJ C 168, 29.5.2017, p. 21–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.5.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 168/21 |
Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-199/04 RENV: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd v Council of the European Union
(Case C-100/17 P)
(2017/C 168/28)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
Form of order sought
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
|
— |
set aside the General Court’s judgment; |
|
— |
rule on the substance and annul the Regulation 397/2004 (1) 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 for the Appeal and the General Court proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the Appellant puts forward the following arguments:
|
— |
The General Court committed an error in law by holding that the Appellant no longer has an interest in the second and third pleas in law. When deciding whether the Appellant has a continued interest in the case, the Court must take into account all evidence and information before it and look at the overall context. The errors in the Council’s dumping margin calculations are methodological and liable of recurring in the future. |
|
— |
The General Court committed an error of law in finding without properly addressing (in some cases, not addressing at all) the Appellant’s arguments that the EU industry’s shifting of production to the high-value segment of the EU bed linen market and the increasing EU imports of bed linen from Turkish producers related to the EU industry did not break the causal link between the alleged dumping and the alleged material injury of the EU industry. Furthermore, the findings of the General Court are based on distortions of the facts as presented in Regulation 397/2004 and incorrect legal characterisations of the facts. |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004, L 66, p. 1).