- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-116/12: Action brought on 12 March 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0116
62012TN0116
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
28.4.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 126/25
(Case T-116/12)
2012/C 126/47
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Tioxide Europe Ltd (Billingham, United Kingdom); Tioxide Europe Srl (Scarlino, Italy); Tioxide Europe SL (Huelva, Spain); and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Arts, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul Council Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 of 19 December 2011 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (OJ L 349, p. 1), insofar as it suspends the import duty levied on rutile titanium dioxide containing by weight 90 % or more of titanium dioxide, not more than 4 % of aluminium hydroxide and not more than 6 % of silicon dioxide, under CN code 3206 11 00;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging failure in duty to provide reasons
—By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Council has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the import duty in relation to the relevant products;
2.Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment
—By their second plea, the applicants consider that Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 infringes Articles 31 and 32 TFEU since the Council, by basing itself on an unlawful proposal of the Commission without any further examination of the relevant facts, has committed a manifest error of assessment;
3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of principle of proportionality
—By their third plea, the applicants further submit that the Council has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a tariff suspension under the contested Regulation, as opposed to the less onerous measure available to it, i.e. a tariff quota, since ‘identical, equivalent or substitute products’ were being manufactured within the Union.