# C_2011370EN.01002901.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/29 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Elsid and Others v Commission

(Case T-557/11)

2011/C 370/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Elsid SA (Titu, Romania), ESD-SIC BV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), ESK-SIC GmbH (Frechen, Germany) and Navarro SIC, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 5934 final of 24 August 2011 rejecting the request for initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures on imports of silicon carbide originating in the People’s Republic of China; and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants, stressing incorrect application of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation( 1 ), rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
a breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. In parallel, or in the alterative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying a higher standard of evidence than that sufficient to accept a request for an expiry review. | — | a breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. In parallel, or in the alterative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying a higher standard of evidence than that sufficient to accept a request for an expiry review. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | a breach of the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. In parallel, or in the alterative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying a higher standard of evidence than that sufficient to accept a request for an expiry review. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in finding that Chinese exports to the US were not comparable to the products of the Union industry in the EU and concluding erroneously that the lower Chinese export price to the US than the Union industry’s prices in the EU was therefore unlikely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury. | — | a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in finding that Chinese exports to the US were not comparable to the products of the Union industry in the EU and concluding erroneously that the lower Chinese export price to the US than the Union industry’s prices in the EU was therefore unlikely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | a breach of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In parallel, or in the alternative, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment in finding that Chinese exports to the US were not comparable to the products of the Union industry in the EU and concluding erroneously that the lower Chinese export price to the US than the Union industry’s prices in the EU was therefore unlikely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury. | | |

---

( 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 L343, 22.12.2009, p. 51

---