- 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-127/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0127
62018TN0127
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
23.4.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 142/66
(Case T-127/18)
(2018/C 142/84)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicants: Cortina (Oudenaarde, Belgium) and FLA Europe (Oudenaarde) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
—declare the application admissible;
—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
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 infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.