EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/77

(Case T-246/22)

(2022/C 237/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PGTEX Morocco (Tanger, Morocco) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Declare the action admissible;

—Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/301 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the countervailing measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

—Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (‘Association Agreement’), acted in breach of Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (‘basic Regulation’) and committed a misuse of powers by imposing countervailing duties, without considering the preferential Moroccan origin of GFF exported by the applicant.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 28(1) and Article 28(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Article 23(3) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’; and

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 23(3) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation by considering that the applicant’s GFF still benefit from subsidies granted to Chinese GFF producers.

*

Language of the case: English

(1)

OJ 2022, L 46, p. 31.