|
16.11.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 381/12 |
Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
(Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P)
(2015/C 381/15)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (represented by: R. Antonini, avvocato, E. Monard, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
1) |
set aside the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union; |
|
2) |
grant the form of order sought by the Appellants in their application made to the General Court and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation EC No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), insofar as it relates to the Appellants; |
|
3) |
order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including those of the Appellants; |
|
4) |
order the intervening parties to bear their own costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellants argue that the General Court, in particular as regards the notion of ‘all [comparable] export transactions’ and the relationship between the provisions concerned, erred in law by misconstruing Articles 2(10) and 2(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) and Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; and imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the Appellants.
The Appellants further argue that the General Court erred in law by misconstruing Articles 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, failed to address certain claims of the Appellants and erred in law when assessing the requirement to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.