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-835/17: Action brought on 29 December 2017 — Eurofer v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0835

62017TN0835

December 29, 2017
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

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/42

(Case T-835/17)

(2018/C 072/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, ASBL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister and G. Forwood, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Article 2 of the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 (JO 2017, L 258, p. 24)

order the requested measures of organisation of procedure; and

order the Commission to pay its costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error of law in deciding not to cumulate Serbian imports with imports from the other four countries under investigation, in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation.(1)

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation and an error in law in finding that trade defence measures against Serbia were ‘unnecessary’ within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Basic Regulation, even on a de-cumulated basis.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation, the applicant’s right to disclosure and its rights of defence, as well as a breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, owing to the Commission’s failure to disclose the injury margin (underselling) and undercutting margin with respect to Serbian imports, and its consequent refusal to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case.

*

Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ [2016] L 176/21).

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