- 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-772/23 P: Appeal brought on 14 December 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2023 in Case T-598/21, Euranimi v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0772
62023CN0772
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
Series C
—
C/2024/1089
(Case C-772/23 P)
(C/2024/1089)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (represented by: M. Campa, V. Villante, avvocati, D. Rovetta, avocat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment under appeal;
—to annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1029 (1) of 24 June 2021, amending the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 to prolong the safeguard measure on imports of certain steel products;
—order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant relies on two main grounds of appeal.
First plea in law, alleging, first, an error in law in interpretation of Article 19(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports and in particular the requisite of ‘serious injury’ and ‘adjustment’, second, a wrongful qualification of facts and distortion of evidence and third, a failure to state reasons and to respond to several crucial arguments, supported by evidence, raised by the appellant.
Second plea in law, alleging, first, an infringement and misinterpretation of the concept of ‘interest of the Union’ under the Regulation (EU) 2015/478, second, a wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence, and third, a failure to state reasons and to respond to several crucial arguments, supported by evidence, raised by the appellant.
(1) OJ 2021 L 225I, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2015 L 83, p. 16.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1089/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—