- 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 C-64/25 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2025 by BT Solar d.o.o. and RC-Log d.o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2024 in Case T-660/20, Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0064
62025CN0064
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
C series
—
C/2025/1535
17.3.2025
(Case C-64/25 P)
(C/2025/1535)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: BT Solar d.o.o., RC-Log d.o.o. (represented by: B. Natens, A. Willems, advocaten, L. Hammoud, avocate)
Other parties to the proceedings: Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, European Commission, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal;
—uphold the application at first instance and annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1216 (1) of 24 August 2020 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co Ltd. in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570 (‘contested Regulation’);
—order the Commission to pay appellants’ costs, and its own costs, at first and on appeal, and order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs;
—in alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and
—reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal and order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law in finding that contested Regulation did not violate Article 8 of Regulation 2016/1036 (2) (‘BADR’) and Article 13 of Regulation 2016/1037 (3) (‘BASR’), and is not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
Second, the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 8(9) BADR and Article 13(9) BASR are a valid legal basis for the contested Regulation.
—
(1) OJ 2020, L 276, p. 1.
(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).
(3) 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 (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 55).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1535/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—