# C_2014142EN.01004301.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/43

---

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council

(Case T-160/14)

2014/C 142/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd (Baoding, China); Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Haikou, China); Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Hengshui, China); Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Tianjin, China); Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd (Baoding); Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China); Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing); Yingli Green Energy Europe (Düsseldorf, Germany); Yingli Green Energy South East Europe GmbH (Grünwald, Germany); Yingli Green Energy France SAS (Lyon, France); Yingli Green Energy Spain, SL (La Moraleja, Spain); Yingli Green Energy Italia Srl (Rome, Italy); and Yingli Green Energy International AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that by making the applicants’ market economy determination more than three months after the initiation of the investigation and after having received all information necessary to calculate the dumping margins, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that by making the applicants’ market economy determination more than three months after the initiation of the investigation and after having received all information necessary to calculate the dumping margins, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that by failing to disclose the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Institutions intended to impose definitive anti-dumping measures, the Institutions violated Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that by failing to disclose the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Institutions intended to impose definitive anti-dumping measures, the Institutions violated Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)

1

---