- 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-191/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0191
62014TN0191
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 151/31
(Case T-191/14)
2014/C 151/40
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor and B. Hartnett, Barrister)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Declare the appeal admissible;
—Annul Articles 1 and 4 of the Council Regulation (EU) 1387/2013 (1) of 17th December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Council Regulation (EU) 1344/2011 to the extent that it deprived the applicant of its rights to the entitlement of the benefit of three duty suspensions under former TARIC Codes 2918.2900.80, 3811.2900.10 and 3811.9000.30 on the grounds that it contains manifest errors in law and substance and was also adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and safeguards;
—Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors in law and substance when determining that the applicable conditions were satisfied for terminating the three autonomous duty suspensions by failing to properly apply the test for establishing the existence of sufficient quantities of similar or substitutable quantities of products made in the European Union as well as the criterion of identical, equivalent or substitute products.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that that the defendant breached essential procedural requirements and safeguards put in place to ensure that the procedural rules, requiring opposing companies to reply within due time and also to prevent misleading and inaccurate information being provided in objections to the continuation of autonomous duty suspension, are properly applied and implemented.
*
(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201)