- 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-469/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0469
62007TN0469
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
23.2.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/53
(Case T-469/07)
(2008/C 51/97)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A. (Pila, Poland) and Philips Lighting BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: M. L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul the contested regulation in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicants;
—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants, who are producers of integrated fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) in the Community, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1).
In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Council violated Articles 3(1), 9(4) and 11(2) of the Basic Regulation (2) by imposing anti-dumping duties where it has not been demonstrated that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Community industry.
The applicants further allege that the Council committed an error of law in relying on Article 9(1) of the Basic Regulation in a situation that does not fall within the scope of that article, as the complaint leading to the investigation had not been withdrawn.
Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned in respect of the level of support from Community producers and the conclusion on Community interest.
(1) OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).