# C_2013325EN.01005001.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/50

---

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — SolarWorld e.a. v Commission

(Case T-507/13)

2013/C 325/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); Global Sun Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Silicio Solar, SAU (Puertollano, Spain); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annul Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 the contested decision violated the applicants' right to a fair legal process and the principle of good administration, the applicants' rights of defence, and Articles 8(4) and 19(2) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1), as






  — | The Commission reached an agreement with the Chinese government and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Machinery and Equipment, on behalf of a large group of Chinese exporting producers, without making a proper and adequate disclosure of the key terms of the undertaking under discussion. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the applicants' right to a fair legal process and the principle of good administration, the applicants' rights of defence, and Articles 8(4) and 19(2) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1), as

1

—

The Commission reached an agreement with the Chinese government and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Machinery and Equipment, on behalf of a large group of Chinese exporting producers, without making a proper and adequate disclosure of the key terms of the undertaking under discussion.

| — | The Commission failed to give interested parties an opportunity to make timely and effective comments on the undertaking arrangement accepted by the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission failed to give interested parties an opportunity to make timely and effective comments on the undertaking arrangement accepted by the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and violation of Articles 6(1) and 8(1) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, insofar as the contested decision deviates arbitrarily from the Commission's investigation findings and sets minimum import prices at levels that are manifestly inadequate to remove the injury to EU producers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and violation of Articles 6(1) and 8(1) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, insofar as the contested decision deviates arbitrarily from the Commission's investigation findings and sets minimum import prices at levels that are manifestly inadequate to remove the injury to EU producers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 101(1) TFEU insofar as the contested decision accepts and reinforces a horizontal price fixing arrangement and is therefore contrary to the TFEU requirement that competition not be distorted on the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 101(1) TFEU insofar as the contested decision accepts and reinforces a horizontal price fixing arrangement and is therefore contrary to the TFEU requirement that competition not be distorted on the internal market.

---

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

1

---