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-248/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by Maxcom Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0248

62015CN0248

May 27, 2015
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

10.8.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/8

(Case C-248/15 P)

(2015/C 262/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

Set aside the General Court’s findings with regard to the second part of the first plea in law:

Dismiss the first plea in law of the Applicant before the General Court in its entirety; and

Order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:

The General Court manifestly erred by holding that under Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation the Council could not conclude that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in transhipment from the facts that (i) the Applicant before the General Court was not a genuine Sri Lankan producer and (ii) did not undertake assembly operations that went beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

In the alternative: The annulment of Regulation 501/2013 as far as it concerns the Applicant before the General Court is not justified even if the Council’s findings on transhipment were incorrect as the Court confirmed that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in assembly operations that did not go beyond the threshold set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation and also confirmed the existence of all other criteria required for not granting the Applicant before the General Court an exemption from the circumvention measures.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 343, p. 51.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

OJ L 153, p. 1.

* * *

Language of the case: English

ECLI:EU:C:2015:140

(2015/C 262/11)

* * *

(1)

(2)

* * *

Language of the case: English

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