# C_2020129EN.01001501.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/15

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and Others v Commission

(Case T-111/20)

(2020/C 129/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia (Medan, Indonesia), PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia (Medan), PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi (Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (1), as far as it applies to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a), 3(1)(a)(i), 3(2) and 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by considering that payments received from the Oil Palm Plantation Fund constituted a countervailable subsidy and by failing to adjust the benefit allegedly received by the applicants for the discounts, as well as transportation and credit costs that were incurred to obtain the alleged subsidies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a), 3(1)(a)(i), 3(2) and 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by considering that payments received from the Oil Palm Plantation Fund constituted a countervailable subsidy and by failing to adjust the benefit allegedly received by the applicants for the discounts, as well as transportation and credit costs that were incurred to obtain the alleged subsidies.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a)(iv), 3(1)(b), 3(2), 6(d) and 28(5) of the basic Regulation and committed manifest errors of assessment, by concluding to the existence of a government support for the provision of crude palm oil for less than adequate remuneration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a)(iv), 3(1)(b), 3(2), 6(d) and 28(5) of the basic Regulation and committed manifest errors of assessment, by concluding to the existence of a government support for the provision of crude palm oil for less than adequate remuneration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and acted in breach of Article 8(8) of the basic Regulation, by concluding that the Union industry was under a threat of material injury. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and acted in breach of Article 8(8) of the basic Regulation, by concluding that the Union industry was under a threat of material injury.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 8(5) and 8(6) of the basic Regulation and committed manifest errors of assessment, by concluding that imports from Indonesia were threatening to cause injury to the Union industry and ignoring the impact of imports from Argentina. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 8(5) and 8(6) of the basic Regulation and committed manifest errors of assessment, by concluding that imports from Indonesia were threatening to cause injury to the Union industry and ignoring the impact of imports from Argentina.

---

(1)  OJ 2019 L 317, p. 42.

---