Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5226

(Case C-499/24 P)

(C/2024/5226)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAŞ, İskenderun Demir ve Çelik AŞ, Erdemir Çelik Servis Merkezi Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (represented by: J. Cornelis, F. Graafsma, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Eight Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 May 2024 in Case T-629/21, Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAŞ and Others v Commission;

—annul Commission Implementing regulation (EU) 2021/1100 (1) of 5 July 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey, and

—order the European Commission to pay the Appellants’ costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-629/21.

Alternatively:

—refer the case back to the General Court, and

—reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on eight grounds of appeal.

First, the Contested Judgment failed to provide reasons and misapplied Article 2(10)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) 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 (‘basic Regulation’) by misconstruing the Appellants’ claim before the General Court in connection with the necessity of the currency conversion.

Second, the Contested Judgment misapplied the legal standard for taking into consideration WTO Agreements for the interpretation of provisions of the basic Regulation.

Third, the Contested Judgment ignored Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation by concluding that Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not lay down an obligation to use a particular exchange rate.

Fourth, the Contested Judgment distorted the evidence by concluding that the Appellants asked for and welcomed a monthly conversion and had themselves applied such a conversion.

Fifth, the Contested Judgment imposes an unreasonable burden of proof by requiring the provision of new cost information in Turkish lira.

Sixth, the Contested Judgment misinterpreted Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation regarding the treatment of hedging operations.

Seventh, the Contested Judgment failed to state reasons by failing to address part of the Appellants’ arguments regarding the double counting of SG&A expenses.

Finally, the Contested Judgment misinterpreted relevant case law and risks reducing the obligation of due diligence and sound administration to nullity.

(1) OJ 2021, L 238, p. 32.

(2) OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5226/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *