- 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-466/07: Action brought on 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0466
62007TN0466
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 51/52
(Case T-466/07)
(2008/C 51/95)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh review regulation comes into force.
—Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who is a German producer of a broad range of various types of light bulbs, including integrated electronic fluorescent lamps (CFL-i), seeks 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), as this regulation only provides for the continuation of the anti-dumping duties for one year instead of the five-year period foreseen in the Basic Regulation (2).
In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all, that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that two entities of the Philips group are ‘Community producers’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation.
Secondly, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of law by applying a Community interest test even though such a test is not foreseen for an expiry review.
Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council breached Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and abused its powers by limiting the duration of the anti-dumping duties to one year.
Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council based the Community interest test on manifestly erroneous factual findings, made an erroneous assessment and failed to state reasons.
* * *
(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).