- 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-28/12: Action brought on 21 January 2012 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0028
62012TN0028
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
10.3.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 73/29
(Case T-28/12)
2012/C 73/57
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Kabil-Batam, Indonesia), Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Singapore, Republic of Singapore), Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (Dessau-Rosslau, Germany) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul the Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicants;
—Order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging
—infringement of Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (hereafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’); in that the Council manifestly erred in its assessment, by rejecting the applicants’ claim, that PTEO and EOS constitute a single economic entity. As a result, the Council has deducted an impermissible notional commission pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation when determining the export price, since it is well-established jurisprudence that the existence of a single economic entity precludes such a deduction of a notional commission;
As an alternative, second plea in law, alleging
—that the inclusion of a notional profit margin of 5 % when making an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation constitutes an impermissible interpretation of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. Only the actual mark-up received by the trader can be deducted from the export price. This second, alternative plea, is only raised in the case the Court would find that the Council did not make a manifest error of assessment when rejecting the applicants’ claim that PTEO and EOS constitute a single economic entity.
(1)
OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51