EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-260/20 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0260

62020CN0260

June 11, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/30

(Case C-260/20 P)

(2020/C 271/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, and A. Demeneix, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal, reject the application at first instance and order Hansol Paper Co. Ltd to pay the costs;

or, alternatively,

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (1).

The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on three grounds of appeal.

The Commission considers the General Court:

distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the legal framework applicable to the data on which the Commission is entitled to rely in order to construct the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic regulation (2);

misinterpreted the rules of article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation for the determination of the normal value in case of absence of domestic sales; and

misinterpreted the rules of article 3 of the basic regulation when defining the undercutting margin in case of exports to the Union through related entities.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ 2017, L 114, p. 3.

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

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia