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 62023TN0379

    Case T-379/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji v Commission

    OJ C 304, 28.8.2023, p. 27–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.8.2023   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 304/27

    Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Çolakoğlu Metalurji v Commission

    (Case T-379/23)

    (2023/C 304/34)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Çolakoğlu Metalurji AŞ (İstanbul, Türkiye) (represented by: J. Cornelis and F. Graafsma, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation); and

    —

    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding.

    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 violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission has concluded that the processing of stainless steel slabs into hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) constituted an ‘assembly operation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that, by imposing anti-circumvention measures on imports of SSHR produced in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of Turkish origin, products which fell outsider the scope of the investigation and which are agreed not to circumvent the original measure, the Commission:

    —

    violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation; misinterpreted Article 13(4) of the Basic Regulation, and committed an error of assessment by not excluding these products or, alternatively, by not granting the applicant an exemption for these products;

    —

    violated the principle of proportionality; and

    —

    violated the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights and misused its powers by extending/imposing measures on these products through the anti-circumvention instrument, instead of conducting a ‘regular’ anti-dumping investigation.
    Top