- 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-38/25: Action brought on 22 January 2025 – Tesla (Shanghai) v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0038
62025TN0038
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/2025/1451
10.3.2025
(Case T-38/25)
(C/2025/1451)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Tesla (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard, B. Maniatis and E. Zachari, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), insofar as it concerns the applicant;
—Order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 5, 7(3) and 15(1) of Regulation 2016/1037 in its calculation of the subsidy amount for one of the grants received by the applicant in the contested Regulation.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 1(1), 5, 7(1) and 15(1) of Regulation 2016/1037 in its calculation of the subsidy amount for the applicant relating to the fiscal policy scheme for domestic battery electric vehicles in the contested Regulation.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 5 and 15(1) of Regulation 2016/1037 by countervailing the Enterprise Income Tax key industries reduction scheme with respect to the applicant in the contested Regulation.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 5 and 7(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1037 in its calculation of the subsidy amount for the applicant with respect to the government provision of batteries for less than adequate remuneration in the contested Regulation.
* Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ L, 2024/2754, 29.10.2024
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1451/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—