# C_2018142EN.01006601.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/66

---

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

(Case T-127/18)

(2018/C 142/84)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cortina (Oudenaarde, Belgium) and FLA Europe (Oudenaarde) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

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

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU on account of absence of legal basis of the contested regulation and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU for failure to take the necessary measures to implement the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

C & J Clark International

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TFEU for adopting an act which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.

---