# C_2022398EN.01001501.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/15

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2022 by Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 18 May 2022 in Case T-479/20, Eurobolt and Others v Commission

(Case C-517/22 P)

(2022/C 398/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Eurobolt BV, Fabory Nederland BV, ASF Fischer BV (represented by: B. Natens and A. Willems, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Stafa Group BV

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | uphold the application at first instance 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) (Contested Regulation) insofar as it concerns the appellants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application at first instance 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) (Contested Regulation) insofar as it concerns the appellants; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs and its own costs for the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice and order any other party to the appeal to pay their own costs;
  or in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs and its own costs for the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice and order any other party to the appeal to pay their own costs;

or in the alternative

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; and

| — | reserve the costs for the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice for final judgment by the General Court and order any other party to the proceedings to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs for the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice for final judgment by the General Court and order any other party to the proceedings to pay their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on seven pleas in law.

First, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 TFEU and the principle of non-retroactivity by finding that the Contested Regulation could retroactively reimpose and prevent repayment of anti-circumvention duties.

Second, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 TFEU by finding that the Contested Regulation could ‘cure’ a violation of essential procedural requirements in anti-dumping proceedings.

Third, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 266 TFEU and the principle of non-retroactivity by finding that the Contested Regulation could ‘cure’ the violation established in the judgment of 3 July 2019, Eurobolt (C-644/17, EU:C:2019:555).

Fourth, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 264 and 266 TFEU by finding that the Commission may usurp the competence of the Court of Justice, and, in doing so, violated Article 296 TFEU.

Fifth, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of effective judicial protection by finding that this principle does not require full repayment of duties in the present case.

Sixth, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2), Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU as well as the principle of good administration by finding that the Contested Regulation has a proper legal basis.

Seventh, the General Court misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU by finding that the Contested Regulation could definitively prohibit repayment of the duties invalidated in the Eurobolt judgment.

---

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

(2)  OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21.

---