# C_2015262EN.01000802.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/8

---

Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by Maxcom Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union

(Case C-248/15 P)

(2015/C 262/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

| — | Set aside the General Court’s findings with regard to the second part of the first plea in law: |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the General Court’s findings with regard to the second part of the first plea in law:

| — | Dismiss the first plea in law of the Applicant before the General Court in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the first plea in law of the Applicant before the General Court in its entirety; and

| — | Order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Applicant before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the Appeal and the Intervention before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:

| — | The General Court manifestly erred by holding that under Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) the Council could not conclude that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in transhipment from the facts that (i) the Applicant before the General Court was not a genuine Sri Lankan producer and (ii) did not undertake assembly operations that went beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court manifestly erred by holding that under Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) the Council could not conclude that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in transhipment from the facts that (i) the Applicant before the General Court was not a genuine Sri Lankan producer and (ii) did not undertake assembly operations that went beyond the thresholds set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation.

1

| — | In the alternative: The annulment of Regulation 501/2013 (2) as far as it concerns the Applicant before the General Court is not justified even if the Council’s findings on transhipment were incorrect as the Court confirmed that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in assembly operations that did not go beyond the threshold set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation and also confirmed the existence of all other criteria required for not granting the Applicant before the General Court an exemption from the circumvention measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative: The annulment of Regulation 501/2013 (2) as far as it concerns the Applicant before the General Court is not justified even if the Council’s findings on transhipment were incorrect as the Court confirmed that the Applicant before the General Court engaged in assembly operations that did not go beyond the threshold set out in Article 13(2) of the Basic Regulation and also confirmed the existence of all other criteria required for not granting the Applicant before the General Court an exemption from the circumvention measures.

2

---

(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.

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

2

OJ L 153, p. 1.

---