- 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-274/07: Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0274
62007TN0274
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
22.9.2007
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 223/15
(Case T-274/07)
(2007/C 223/24)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Zhejiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 452/2007 of 23 April 2007, insofar as it applies to the applicant; and
—order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who manufactures ironing boards and the essential parts thereof in the People's Republic of China, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (1) to the extent that these measures apply to the applicant.
In support of its application, the applicant, first of all, submits that the Community institutions infringed Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation (2) as the Commission presented a proposal for anti-dumping measures to the Council based on a flawed determination that the applicant did not satisfy the Market Economy Status criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c).
Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Community institutions infringed Article 20(4) and (5) of the Basic Regulation and its right to be heard as the applicant was only given six days to respond to the Commissions revised final disclosure letter.
Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Community institutions infringed Article 8 of the Basic Regulation by failing to give proper consideration to the price undertakings offered by the applicant.
Finally, the applicant claims that the Community institutions infringed Article 5(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation by not disclosing the identity of the complainant initiating the investigation leading to the contested regulation.
(1) OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).