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 T-391/24: Action brought on 26 July 2024 – Eurofer v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0391

62024TN0391

July 26, 2024
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

EN

C series

C/2024/5333

(Case T-391/24)

(C/2024/5333)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l’Acier, AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Prost, C. Bouvarel, O. Chef, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the action for annulment admissible;

annul Article 1, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, of the European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1268 of 6 May 2024 extending the definitive countervailing duties imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in Indonesia to imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam or not, (1) insofar as it concerns the exempted exporting producers : (i) Yieh United Steel Corporation, (ii) Tang Eng Iron Works Co., Ltd. (YUSCO group), (iii) Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd., (iv) Yuan Long Stainless Steel Corp (v) Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd., (vi) Walsin Lihwa Corporation and (vii) Posco Assan TST; the remainder of the regulation remains valid and in force;

order the European Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 Commission committed an error of law in its application of a ‘producer-based’, rather than a ‘product-based’ approach to the thresholds set out in the assembly operation test.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is vitiated insofar as it exempts the six cooperating Taiwanese producers and one Turkish producer because the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and of law through its restrictive interpretation of the temporal requirement in the assembly operation test, its misapplication of the facts, which can only entail that its finding of circumvention at country-level must also be applied to the cooperating producers and the failure to address the substantial increase of exports to the EU between 2020 and 2021.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1268 of 6 May 2024 extending the definitive countervailing duties imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in Indonesia to imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products consigned from Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam or not (OJ L 2024/1268).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5333/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

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