30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/43

(Case T-611/20)

(2020/C 414/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey, V. Villante and M. Pirovano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration;

—order measures of organisation of procedure and ask the Commission to produce its internal documents and analysis related to the preparatory work to the challenged Regulation and the relevant registration of imports;

—order the defendant to bear the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.

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 a breach of Articles 10(4) and 14(5) of the EU Basic antidumping Regulation as well as manifest error of assessment in the review and assessment of the evidence provided by the anti-dumping complainant to order the registration of imports. The applicant argues that the Commission based its findings related to the imposition of registration of imports foreseen by the challenged Regulation on evidence and data that are not reliable and not representative of the European Union market.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts in that the Commission did not assess adequately the presence of the relevant conditions to order registration of imports.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard of the applicant, as well as a breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The applicant argues that its right to be heard has been compromised because he was not provided with the relevant methodology to assess the presence of dumping and could not comment on such methodology. The applicant also argues that the challenged Regulation is flawed in that it contains an incomplete motivation in that there is no clear explanation of the methodology uses to assess dumping as well as of why and how the Commission considered reliable evidence submitted by the anti-dumping complainant which at first sight is clearly unreliable.