This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0217
Case T-217/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
Case T-217/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
Case T-217/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
IO C 251, 11.7.2016, p. 38–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
11.7.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 251/38 |
Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
(Case T-217/16)
(2016/C 251/44)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, S.A. (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente, A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
uphold the grounds for annulment put forward and annul Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not; |
— |
expressly acknowledge that Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, has retroactive effects. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges the abovementioned regulation in so far as, notwithstanding the fact that the latter repealed the anti-dumping duties initially imposed on the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia, as a result of the decisions adopted by the relevant WTO authorities, Article 2 of that regulation restricts the possible reimbursement of the duties paid by refusing to make the repeal retroactive, allowing the continued existence in law of anti-dumping duties contrary to the regulatory rules of the WTO, without there being an objective public policy justification for such a decision.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, based on the unlawfulness of Article 2 of the contested regulation, on the ground that it was contrary to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, based on legal certainty and the principle of unjust enrichment
|
3. |
Third plea in law, based on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
|