EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/43

(Case T-328/21)

(2021/C 320/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, M. Pirovano, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/546 of 29 March 2021, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitely collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);

—order the Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs and its own costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equality of arms and of sound administration, a manifest error of assessment, and a breach of the rights of defence and of disclosure of the applicant.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the Commission in the assessment of injury and causation with regard to the methodology, data and procedure applied, and a breach of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 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 (the ‘Basic Regulation’) (2).

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 1(2) and 5(2) of the Basic Regulation by reason of an incorrect definition of the product concerned.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 1(2) and of Article 3 of the Basic Regulation as well as a manifest error of assessment concerning the scope of the product concerned as well as concerning the evaluation of imports from the country concerned for the injury analysis and causation purposes (CN Code 7610 90 90).

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2(6a) (a) of the Basic Regulation in that the Commission performed a wrong choice of the ‘appropriate representative’ country.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2(6a) of the Basic Regulation concerning the legal status of the report by which the Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. The applicant maintains that there is a violation of Regulation No 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (3) and of its fundamental rights, given that it could not receive the above report in Italian language.

(1)

OJ 2021 L 109, p. 1.

(2)

OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21.

(3)

OJ, English Special Edition, Series I 1952-1958, p. 59.