# C_2022237EN.01007601.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/76

---

Action brought on 4 May 2022 — PGTEX Morocco v Commission

(Case T-245/22)

(2022/C 237/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PGTEX Morocco (Tanger, Morocco) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/302 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776, on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/302 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776, on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant 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 defendant acted in breach of the Association Agreement and Article 22 of the basic Regulation and the Contested Regulation is vitiated by misuse of powers since it imposes anti-dumping measures against the preferential Moroccan origin GFF exported by the applicant without having determined that imports were ‘dumped’ in accordance with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) and without such measures being consistent with the Agreement relating to the application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (‘ADA’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of the Association Agreement and Article 22 of the basic Regulation and the Contested Regulation is vitiated by misuse of powers since it imposes anti-dumping measures against the preferential Moroccan origin GFF exported by the applicant without having determined that imports were ‘dumped’ in accordance with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) and without such measures being consistent with the Agreement relating to the application of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (‘ADA’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 18(1) and Article 18(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to state reasons, breached the applicant’s rights of defence, violated the right to sound administration, committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 18(1) and Article 18(3) of the basic Regulation by applying facts available against the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in violation of the right to sound administration and in breach of Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the establishment of the applicant; and

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of the right to sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment and Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the basic Regulation by relying on the finding that the manufacturing process carried out in Morocco constitutes an ‘assembly operation’.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 49.

---