# C_2012126EN.01002501.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/25 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 March 2012 — Tioxide Europe and Others v Council

(Case T-116/12)

2012/C 126/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tioxide Europe Ltd (Billingham, United Kingdom); Tioxide Europe Srl (Scarlino, Italy); Tioxide Europe SL (Huelva, Spain); and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Arts, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 of 19 December 2011 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 (OJ L 349, p. 1), insofar as it suspends the import duty levied on rutile titanium dioxide containing by weight 90 % or more of titanium dioxide, not more than 4 % of aluminium hydroxide and not more than 6 % of silicon dioxide, under CN code 3206 11 00; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure in duty to provide reasons
—
By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Council has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the import duty in relation to the relevant products; | — | By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Council has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the import duty in relation to the relevant products; |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Council has failed in its obligation to provide sufficient reasons for suspending the import duty in relation to the relevant products; | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment
—
By their second plea, the applicants consider that Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 infringes Articles 31 and 32 TFEU since the Council, by basing itself on an unlawful proposal of the Commission without any further examination of the relevant facts, has committed a manifest error of assessment; | — | By their second plea, the applicants consider that Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 infringes Articles 31 and 32 TFEU since the Council, by basing itself on an unlawful proposal of the Commission without any further examination of the relevant facts, has committed a manifest error of assessment; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By their second plea, the applicants consider that Regulation (EU) no 1344/2011 infringes Articles 31 and 32 TFEU since the Council, by basing itself on an unlawful proposal of the Commission without any further examination of the relevant facts, has committed a manifest error of assessment; | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of principle of proportionality
—
By their third plea, the applicants further submit that the Council has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a tariff suspension under the contested Regulation, as opposed to the less onerous measure available to it, i.e. a tariff quota, since ‘identical, equivalent or substitute products’ were being manufactured within the Union. | — | By their third plea, the applicants further submit that the Council has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a tariff suspension under the contested Regulation, as opposed to the less onerous measure available to it, i.e. a tariff quota, since ‘identical, equivalent or substitute products’ were being manufactured within the Union. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By their third plea, the applicants further submit that the Council has breached the principle of proportionality by adopting a tariff suspension under the contested Regulation, as opposed to the less onerous measure available to it, i.e. a tariff quota, since ‘identical, equivalent or substitute products’ were being manufactured within the Union. | | |

---