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 62018TN0127

    Case T-127/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

    IO C 142, 23.4.2018, p. 66–66 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    23.4.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 142/66

    Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

    (Case T-127/18)

    (2018/C 142/84)

    Language of the case: Dutch

    Parties

    Applicants: Cortina (Oudenaarde, Belgium) and FLA Europe (Oudenaarde) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the General Court should:

    —

    declare the application admissible;

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.
    Top