# C_2016270EN.01003201.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/32

---

Appeal brought on 26 May 2016 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16/03/2016 in Case T-586/14: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-301/16 P)

(2016/C 270/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, L. Flynn, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd

Other party 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 (Fourth Chamber) of 16 March 2016, notified to the Commission of 17 March 2016, in Case T-586/14 Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd v Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 March 2016, notified to the Commission of 17 March 2016, in Case T-586/14 Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd v Commission

| — | reject the first limb of the first plea of the application at first instance as unfounded in law; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the first limb of the first plea of the application at first instance as unfounded in law;

| — | refer the case for the second limb of the first plea and the second to fourth pleas of the application at first instance to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case for the second limb of the first plea and the second to fourth pleas of the application at first instance to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the General Court has misinterpreted the notion ‘carried over from the former non-market economy’ in Article 2(7)(c) third indent of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. That plea comprises five limbs:

carried over from the former non-market economy

1

| — | First limb: Measures implementing the five-year plan are carried over from the former non-market economy |
| --- | --- |

—

First limb: Measures implementing the five-year plan are carried over from the former non-market economy

| — | Second limb: The support of strategic business sectors (‘picking winners’) does not constitute a legitimate objective in a market economy |
| --- | --- |

—

Second limb: The support of strategic business sectors (‘picking winners’) does not constitute a legitimate objective in a market economy

| — | Third limb: Subsidies in a market economy are not open-ended, but linked to an investment |
| --- | --- |

—

Third limb: Subsidies in a market economy are not open-ended, but linked to an investment

| — | Fourth limb: The measures under assessment are not comparable to illegal and incompatible State aid observed in the Union |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth limb: The measures under assessment are not comparable to illegal and incompatible State aid observed in the Union

| — | Fifth limb: Erroneous interpretation of the notion of ‘non-market economy’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth limb: Erroneous interpretation of the notion of ‘non-market economy’

Second, the judgment is vitiated by lack of reasoning and contradictory reasoning.

Third, the General Court has committed a number of procedural irregularities:

| — | First limb: the General Court has ruled on a matter on which it had no jurisdiction (ultra vires), has violated the principle that the subject-matter of an action is defined by the parties, and has violated Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 44(1) and 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as they were in force at the time of the introduction of the case at first instance |
| --- | --- |

—

First limb: the General Court has ruled on a matter on which it had no jurisdiction (ultra vires), has violated the principle that the subject-matter of an action is defined by the parties, and has violated Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 44(1) and 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, as they were in force at the time of the introduction of the case at first instance

ultra vires

| — | Second limb: The Commission has not been heard on the alleged comparability of the State aid mentioned in the judgments quoted in paragraph 66 with the measures under assessment |
| --- | --- |

—

Second limb: The Commission has not been heard on the alleged comparability of the State aid mentioned in the judgments quoted in paragraph 66 with the measures under assessment

| — | Third limb: The General Court has not answered the arguments of the Commission on the definition of ‘non-market economy’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third limb: The General Court has not answered the arguments of the Commission on the definition of ‘non-market economy’.

---

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

1

OJ L 343, p. 51

---