# C_2021053EN.01005301.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/53

---

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Airoldi Metalli v Commission

(Case T-744/20)

(2021/C 53/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Airoldi Metalli SpA (Molteno, Italy) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1428 of 12 October 2020, imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1428 of 12 October 2020, imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);

| — | order measures of inquiry; |
| --- | --- |

—

order measures of inquiry;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 1(2) of the Basic Regulation in that the defendant incorrectly defined the product concerned by relying on Product Production Methods (‘PPM’), on incorrect reference to tariff classification codes of the EU Combined Nomenclature. The defendant also erred in law by considering that products ‘made in aluminium’ automatically qualified as products concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 1(2) of the Basic Regulation in that the defendant incorrectly defined the product concerned by relying on Product Production Methods (‘PPM’), on incorrect reference to tariff classification codes of the EU Combined Nomenclature. The defendant also erred in law by considering that products ‘made in aluminium’ automatically qualified as products concerned.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 1(2) and 3(2) of the Basic Regulation as well as a manifest error of assessment concerning the scope of the product concerned and the evaluation of imports from the country concerned for the injury analysis purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 1(2) and 3(2) of the Basic Regulation as well as a manifest error of assessment concerning the scope of the product concerned and the evaluation of imports from the country concerned for the injury analysis purposes.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 (6) (a) of Basic Regulation in that the Commission performed a wrong choice of the ‘appropriate representative’ country. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 (6) (a) of Basic Regulation in that the Commission performed a wrong choice of the ‘appropriate representative’ country.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 19 (a) of the Basic Regulation and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence as well as of the principles of proportionality and equality of arms. The applicant argues that it did not receive a proper pre-disclosure and that the system of pre-disclosure foreseen by the Basic Regulation vis-à-vis importers is unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 19 (a) of the Basic Regulation and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence as well as of the principles of proportionality and equality of arms. The applicant argues that it did not receive a proper pre-disclosure and that the system of pre-disclosure foreseen by the Basic Regulation vis-à-vis importers is unlawful.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2(6) (a) of the Basic Regulation concerning the legal status of the Report by which the Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. The applicant argues a violation of its fundamental rights given that it could not receive the above Report in Italian language. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2(6) (a) of the Basic Regulation concerning the legal status of the Report by which the Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country. The applicant argues a violation of its fundamental rights given that it could not receive the above Report in Italian language.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 336, p. 8.

---