This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62025TN0037
Case T-37/25: Action brought on 22 January 2025 – CCCME and Other v Commission
Case T-37/25: Action brought on 22 January 2025 – CCCME and Other v Commission
Case T-37/25: Action brought on 22 January 2025 – CCCME and Other v Commission
OJ C, C/2025/1450, 10.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1450/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/1450 |
10.3.2025 |
Action brought on 22 January 2025 – CCCME and Other v Commission
(Case T-37/25)
(C/2025/1450)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Beijing, China) and 22 others (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis and M. Van Luchene, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), |
|
— |
Order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants relies on four pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 10(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘basic AS Regulation’) by initiating the investigation ex officio in the absence of ‘special circumstances’. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(4), 8(5), 8(8), 15(1), 15(3), 27(1) and 27(2) of the basic AS Regulation and a manifest error of assessment by selecting an unobjective sample of Chinese exporting producers. More specifically, the applicants claim:
|
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging violations of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(5), 8(6) and 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation, manifest errors of assessment and consequent violations of Article 8(4) of the basic AS Regulation by failing to conduct an objective threat of injury analysis based on positive evidence. More specifically, the applicants claim:
|
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(6) of the basic AS Regulation, a manifest error of assessment and a consequent violation of Article 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation by failing to conduct an objective non-attribution analysis based on positive evidence. More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly consider the lack of competitiveness of the European Union’s industry and the intra-EU competition in its non-attribution analysis. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1450/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)