# C_2020313EN.01000801.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/8

---

Appeal brought on 29 May 2020 by Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-835/17, Eurofer v Commission

(Case C-226/20 P)

(2020/C 313/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL (represented by: J. Killick, advocaat, G. Forwood, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul article 2 of the contested regulation (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul article 2 of the contested regulation (1);

| — | in the alternative refer the matter back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative refer the matter back to the General Court;

| — | order the Commission and the intervener before the General Court to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and the intervener before the General Court to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

| 1. | An error of law by interpreting article 3(4) of the basic regulation (2) to mean that the Commission has the discretion to consider that imports representing a market share exceeding 1 % are ‘negligible’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

An error of law by interpreting article 3(4) of the basic regulation (2) to mean that the Commission has the discretion to consider that imports representing a market share exceeding 1 % are ‘negligible’.

| 2. | Errors as regards the assessment that ‘the volume of imports’ from Serbia were ‘negligible’ for the purpose of article 3(4) of the basic regulation. Specifically, the General Court committed:






  2.1. | an error of law in including price elements in the assessment of negligibility, which is solely a quantitative assessment related to volumes; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Errors as regards the assessment that ‘the volume of imports’ from Serbia were ‘negligible’ for the purpose of article 3(4) of the basic regulation. Specifically, the General Court committed:

2.1.

an error of law in including price elements in the assessment of negligibility, which is solely a quantitative assessment related to volumes;

| 2.2. | in the alternative, an error of law in failing to consider other factors (notably undercutting and underselling data) that could (more accurately) indicate the potential effects that the imported volumes are capable of having; and |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

in the alternative, an error of law in failing to consider other factors (notably undercutting and underselling data) that could (more accurately) indicate the potential effects that the imported volumes are capable of having; and

| 2.3. | further, a manifest error of assessment and distortion of the evidence in finding that the average prices associated with volumes amounting to an insignificant market share could, without more, support a finding that the volume is ‘negligible’ in this specific case. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

further, a manifest error of assessment and distortion of the evidence in finding that the average prices associated with volumes amounting to an insignificant market share could, without more, support a finding that the volume is ‘negligible’ in this specific case.

| 3. | Errors as regards the finding that ‘protective measures are unnecessary’ for the purpose of article 9(2) of the basic regulation. Specifically, the General Court committed:






  3.1. | an error of law in finding that the Commission could terminate the investigation with no analysis of potential injury; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Errors as regards the finding that ‘protective measures are unnecessary’ for the purpose of article 9(2) of the basic regulation. Specifically, the General Court committed:

3.1.

an error of law in finding that the Commission could terminate the investigation with no analysis of potential injury; and

| 3.2. | an error in law and a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Commission did not exceed its margin of discretion in applying article 9(2) of the basic regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

an error in law and a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Commission did not exceed its margin of discretion in applying article 9(2) of the basic regulation.

| 4. | An error in law in finding that the Commission was not required to disclose data on undercutting and underselling in relation to the Serbian exporter. Specifically, the General Court committed:






  4.1. | an error in law in finding that the respect for Eurofer’s rights of defence did not require the disclosure of data on undercutting and underselling; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

An error in law in finding that the Commission was not required to disclose data on undercutting and underselling in relation to the Serbian exporter. Specifically, the General Court committed:

4.1.

an error in law in finding that the respect for Eurofer’s rights of defence did not require the disclosure of data on undercutting and underselling;

| 4.2. | an error of law in finding that the complainant in an anti-dumping investigation cannot rely on the requirements stemming from respect for the rights of the defence; and |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

an error of law in finding that the complainant in an anti-dumping investigation cannot rely on the requirements stemming from respect for the rights of the defence; and

| 4.3. | an error in law in finding that the contested regulation respected the principle of sound administration enshrined in article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

an error in law in finding that the contested regulation respected the principle of sound administration enshrined in article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ 2017, L 258, p. 24).

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

---