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-436/18 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2018 by Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0436

62018CN0436

July 2, 2018
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

24.9.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/7

(Case C-436/18 P)

(2018/C 341/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-675/15, Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd. v European Commission;

annul Commission lmplementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 (1) of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China insofar as it concerns the appellant; and

order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-675/15.

Alternatively,

refer the case back to the General Court; and

reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ln support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

First, the contested judgment illegally interpreted the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by reading into that provision a condition that is not in the text of that provision when selecting the analogue country.

Second, by holding that adjustments to the normal value are in principle not possible when applying Article 2(7)(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, the contested judgment violated this provision.

*

Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ 2015, L 224, p. 10.

(2) OJ 2009, L 343, 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