# C_2012025EN.01006301.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/63

---

Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Bricmate v Council

(Case T-596/11)

(2012/C 25/120)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bricmate AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Dackö, A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

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

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1), insofar as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs;

| — | In the event the action was rejected as inadmissible or dismissed on merits, order each party to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event the action was rejected as inadmissible or dismissed on merits, order each party to pay its own 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 that






  — | the injury and causation analysis are vitiated by errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment and further, that the European Commission and the Council (referred to as ‘Institutions’) violated the principle of due care and Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘basic anti-dumping regulation’) (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by failing to objectively examine the claims that the data provided by Eurostat had been inaccurate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that

—

the injury and causation analysis are vitiated by errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment and further, that the European Commission and the Council (referred to as ‘Institutions’) violated the principle of due care and Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘basic anti-dumping regulation’) (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by failing to objectively examine the claims that the data provided by Eurostat had been inaccurate;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | failure to state reasons, violation of the right of defence and further, violation of Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping regulation as regards the differences in the level of processing between ceramic tiles from China and those produced in the EU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

failure to state reasons, violation of the right of defence and further, violation of Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping regulation as regards the differences in the level of processing between ceramic tiles from China and those produced in the EU.

---