Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1247

3.3.2025

(Case T-25/25)

(C/2025/1247)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SAIC Motor Corporation Ltd (Shanghai, China), Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation (Nanjing, China), SAIC Maxus Automotive Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China), SAIC Volkswagen Automotive Co. Ltd (Shanghai), SAIC General Motors Corporation Ltd (Shanghai, China), SAIC Gm Wuling Automobile Co. Ltd (Liuzhou, China) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicants; and

—Order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to allocate the benefits of subsidy schemes received by certain entities of the SAIC Group to the turnover of the group for battery electric vehicles only constitutes a manifest error of assessment in that it disregards available information on records and violates Articles 7 and 28 of the Basic Regulation as well as the duty to state reasons.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to pass-through the entire benefits received by Volkswagen Finance (China) Co. Ltd. and SAIC-General Motors Acceptance Corporation Automotive Finance Co. Ltd. to the SAIC Group constitutes a manifest error of assessment in that it disregards available information on records and violates Articles 1(1), 5, 7(1), 28(1) and 28(5) of the Basic Regulation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to disregard in its entirety the information provided by three related vertically integrated battery suppliers when calculating the amount of benefit for the subsidy scheme concerning the provision of batteries for less than adequate remuneration constitutes a manifest error of assessment and violates Articles 1(1), 3, 5 and 28 of the Basic Regulation, the duty to state reasons and the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to calculate the benefits arising from the subsidy schemes grants and ‘Fiscal Subsidy Policy for the Promotion and Application of New Energy Vehicles’ based on the amounts received before tax without making appropriate adjustments for the tax levied violates Articles 3 and 5 of the Basic Regulation.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail subsidies granted prior to the investigation period under the subsidy scheme ‘Fiscal Subsidy Policy for the Promotion and Application of New Energy Vehicles’ constitutes a manifest error of assessment disregarding evidence on records and violates Articles 3, 5 and 15(1) of the Basic Regulation.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the subsidy scheme tax exemption on dividends constitutes a manifest error of assessment in interpreting the Corporate Income Tax Law of the People's Republic of China when concluding that this scheme is specific within the meaning of Article 4 of the Basic Regulation.

(1)

Language of the case: English

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1247/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

* * *

OJ L, 2024/2754, 29.10.2024

—

Language of the case: English