# C_2020271EN.01004901.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/49

---

Action brought on 30 June 2020 — Zippo Manufacturing and Others v Commission

(Case T-402/20)

(2020/C 271/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zippo Manufacturing Co. (Bradford, Pennsylvania, United States), Zippo GmbH (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany), Zippo SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 of 6 April 2020 on certain commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America to the extent that these measures apply to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/502 of 6 April 2020 on certain commercial policy measures concerning certain products originating in the United States of America to the extent that these measures apply to the applicants;

| — | order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of the additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that those measures: (a) are not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued; (b) go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives; and (c) entail needless adverse effects upon applicants. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of the additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that those measures: (a) are not appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued; (b) go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives; and (c) entail needless adverse effects upon applicants.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the additional duties create an unequal situation for them in the Union market without sufficient justification that the discrimination was objectively justified. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the additional duties create an unequal situation for them in the Union market without sufficient justification that the discrimination was objectively justified.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law and facts through failure to properly motivate the reasoning contained in the Contested Regulation and the Contested Measures in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties on the grounds that the European Commission failed to provide sufficient and adequate reasoning for applying the measures to their products. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law and facts through failure to properly motivate the reasoning contained in the Contested Regulation and the Contested Measures in selecting the applicants’ products for additional duties on the grounds that the European Commission failed to provide sufficient and adequate reasoning for applying the measures to their products.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law by infringing the Union’s duties under the Agreements of the World Trade Organisation on the grounds that the European Commission was obligated under the WTO Safeguards Agreement and Article 22(3) of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector as that in which the nullification or impairment occurred under the relevant US safeguard measures to the detriment of the applicants’ economic and commercial interests. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in law by infringing the Union’s duties under the Agreements of the World Trade Organisation on the grounds that the European Commission was obligated under the WTO Safeguards Agreement and Article 22(3) of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector as that in which the nullification or impairment occurred under the relevant US safeguard measures to the detriment of the applicants’ economic and commercial interests.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of sound administration in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the preceding consultation process carried out was non-transparent, ineffective in providing adequate notice of that process to the applicants, deprived them of their right to be heard and infringed their legitimate expectation not to be the subject of such measures derived. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the principle of sound administration in selecting the applicants’ products for the application of additional duties applied by the Contested Regulation on the grounds that the preceding consultation process carried out was non-transparent, ineffective in providing adequate notice of that process to the applicants, deprived them of their right to be heard and infringed their legitimate expectation not to be the subject of such measures derived.

---