EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-378/23: Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0378

62023TN0378

July 10, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
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

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/27

(Case T-378/23)

(2023/C 304/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcegaglia Specialties SpA (Gazoldo degli Ippoliti, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicant is concerned; and

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding.

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 that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the manufacturing process carried out in Türkiye constitutes an ‘assembly/completion operation’.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the processing operation carried out in Türkiye.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is unlawful insofar as it extended the duty in force against imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia to imports of SSHR manufactured in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of origin other than Indonesian.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia