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-126/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0126

62018TN0126

February 27, 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

23.4.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/65

(Case T-126/18)

(2018/C 142/83)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Van Haren Schoenen BV (Waalwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens, A. Willems and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

declare the application admissible;

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

order the Commission to pay the 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 infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and of the principle of legal certainty for imposing anti-dumping duties on goods that are in free circulation.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in so far as the anti-dumping duties were imposed without a fresh assessment of the EU interest. According to the applicant, it was, in any event, manifestly incorrect to conclude that the Union had an interest in the anti-dumping duties being imposed.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.

*

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, p. 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