22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/67

(Case T-165/23)

(2023/C 179/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: S. Dumon-Kappe and D. Todorova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—hold that the present action is admissible and well founded; consequently,

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia;

—in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) and Article 21(1) of 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. That plea is divided into three parts.

—According to the first part, the defendant, by deciding to pursue the investigation on imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia despite the withdrawal of the complaint, did not take all the interests of the European Union or the opposition of various European players into account.

—According to the second part, the defendant, by deciding to introduce definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia, committed a manifest error of assessment of the users’ interests.

—According to the third part, the Commission, by refusing to terminate the anti-dumping investigation without imposing measures, breached the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) and Article 3(6) of 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.

—The applicant argues, in that regard, that the defendant overestimated the negative impact on the EU industry of imports of fatty acids originating in Indonesia, which have not caused any material harm to the European industry.