# C_2012109EN.01002901.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/29

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-73/12)

2012/C 109/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany), Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands), Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France) and Hans Einhell Oesterreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8831, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8825, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8828 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8810, all four decision being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 81, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8831, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8825, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8828 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8810, all four decision being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 81, p. 1);

| — | Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin for the purposes of establishing the revised dumping margin applicable to the imports in question, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the unrelated supplier when calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin for the purposes of establishing the revised dumping margin applicable to the imports in question, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the unrelated supplier when calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the unrelated supplier’s export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the revised dumping margin and the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the unrelated supplier’s export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the revised dumping margin and the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.

1

---