Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0790

    Case T-790/19: Action brought on 13 November 2019 – Novolipetsk Steel v Commission

    OJ C 10, 13.1.2020, p. 49–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    13.1.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 10/49

    Action brought on 13 November 2019 – Novolipetsk Steel v Commission

    (Case T-790/19)

    (2020/C 10/60)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Novolipetsk Steel PAO (Lipetsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

    —

    maintain the effects of the contested Regulation until the defendant adopts the measures needed to comply with the judgment of the General Court, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the defendant lacked competence and acted in breach of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/477 (‘Combined Effect Regulation’) (2) and Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘Basic AD Regulation’) (3), by imposing varying levels of anti-dumping duties, depending on whether or not quotas under the safeguard measures are exhausted.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and acted in breach of Article 1(1) of the Combined Effect Regulation and Article 9(5) of the Basic AD Regulation by only amending the anti-dumping measures once the quotas under the safeguard measures are exhausted.

    (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 of 2 September 2019 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to safeguard measures, OJ L 227, 3.9.2019, p. 1.

    (2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/477 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures, OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 11.

    (3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (codification), OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

    Top