# C_2014212EN.01001701.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/17

---

Appeal brought on 15 April 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-193/14 P)

2014/C 212/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, B. O'Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, European Commission, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl//Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos, SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, Vallourec Tubes France, formerly V & M France, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, voestalpine Tubulars GmbH, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2014 in Case C-528/09 ‘Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union’; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2014 in Case C-528/09 ‘Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union’;

| — | reject the first limb of the third plea in law put forward by the applicants at first instance as unfounded in law; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the first limb of the third plea in law put forward by the applicants at first instance as unfounded in law;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration for the remaining pleas in law at first instance to the extent that the facts have not been established by the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration for the remaining pleas in law at first instance to the extent that the facts have not been established by the General Court;

| — | order Hubei to pay the Council’s costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Hubei to pay the Council’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | first, the General Court infringed Article 3(5) of the basic A-D Regulation (1) and distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it, insofar as it made a selective and incomplete appraisal of the factors required by law to determine that the Union industry was in a vulnerable situation at the end of the IP; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, the General Court infringed Article 3(5) of the basic A-D Regulation (1) and distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it, insofar as it made a selective and incomplete appraisal of the factors required by law to determine that the Union industry was in a vulnerable situation at the end of the IP;

1

| — | second, the General Court misinterpreted and then misapplied Article 3(7) of the basic A-D Regulation in relation to the foreseen collapse in demand; |
| --- | --- |

—

second, the General Court misinterpreted and then misapplied Article 3(7) of the basic A-D Regulation in relation to the foreseen collapse in demand;

| — | third, the General Court misinterpreted Article 3(9) of the basic A-D Regulation as to the threat of injury’s analysis; |
| --- | --- |

—

third, the General Court misinterpreted Article 3(9) of the basic A-D Regulation as to the threat of injury’s analysis;

| — | fourth, the General Court exceeded its jurisdiction, insofar as it substituted its own assessment of the economic factors under consideration to that of the Union institutions. |
| --- | --- |

—

fourth, the General Court exceeded its jurisdiction, insofar as it substituted its own assessment of the economic factors under consideration to that of the Union institutions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, p. 1; replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ L 343, p. 51

1

---