# C_2020304EN.01002201.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/22

---

Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Eurobolt and Others v Commission

(Case T-479/20)

(2020/C 304/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Eurobolt BV (‘s-Heerenberg, Netherlands), Fabory Nederland BV (Tilburg, Netherlands), ASF Fischer BV (Lelystad, Netherlands), Stafa Group BV (Maarheeze, Netherlands) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 of 30 April 2020 re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 of 30 April 2020 re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (1); and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission 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 that by retroactively ‘repairing’ a violation of an essential procedural requirement, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 266 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by retroactively ‘repairing’ a violation of an essential procedural requirement, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 266 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that because it has no valid legal basis, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2), Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Treaty on the European Union (‘TEU’) and the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that because it has no valid legal basis, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2), Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Treaty on the European Union (‘TEU’) and the principle of good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that by prohibiting repayment and ordering collection of repaid anti-dumping duties, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that by prohibiting repayment and ordering collection of repaid anti-dumping duties, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 141, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

---