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-557/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Elsid and Others v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0557

62011TN0557

October 24, 2011
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

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/29

(Case T-557/11)

2011/C 370/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Elsid SA (Titu, Romania), ESD-SIC BV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), ESK-SIC GmbH (Frechen, Germany) and Navarro SIC, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 5934 final of 24 August 2011 rejecting the request for initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon carbide originating in the People’s Republic of China; and

Order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants, stressing incorrect application of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (1), rely on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging

a breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying a higher standard of evidence than that sufficient to accept a request for an expiry review.

2.Second plea in law, alleging

a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in finding that Chinese exports to the US were not comparable to the products of the Union industry in the EU and concluding erroneously that the lower Chinese export price to the US than the Union industry’s prices in the EU was therefore unlikely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) OJ L343, 22.12.2009, p. 51

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