- 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-29/25: Action brought on 21 January 2025 – Zhejiang Geely Automobile and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0029
62025TN0029
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/1249
3.3.2025
(Case T-29/25)
(C/2025/1249)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China), Zhejiang Haoqing Automobile Manufacturing Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China), Asia Euro Automobile Manufacture (Taizhou) Co. Ltd (Pengjie, China), Chongqing Lifan Passenger Vehicle Co. Ltd (Chongqing, China), Fengsheng Automobile (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Rugao, China), Shanxi New Energy Automobile Industry Co. Ltd (Jinzhong, China), Zhongjia Automobile Manufacturing (Chengdu) Co. Ltd (Chengdu, China) (represented by: S. De Knop, M. Meulenbelt and A. Moroni, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Declare the application admissible;
—Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (Contested Regulation); and
—Order the Commission 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 manifest error of assessment and violation of Articles 2(b), 3, 4(2), 5, 6(d), 7, 15(1) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (Basic Regulation) and Article 291(2) of the TFEU in finding and calculating alleged countervailable subsidies.
2.Second plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defence and of the obligation to state reasons in connection with the assessment of threat of injury under Article 8(8) Basic Regulation.
3.Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality and plea of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, and manifest error of assessment and violation of Articles 15(1) and 31 of Basic Regulation and the principle of proportionality in failing to apply the lesser duty rule.
—
(1) OJ L, 2024/2754, 29.10.2024
(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1249/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—