EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/27

Appeal brought on 8 May 2017 by Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-162/14: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and Others v Council

(Case C-236/17 P)

(2017/C 239/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat, S. De Knop, advocaat, M. Meulenbelt, advocaat, A. Willems, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-162/14;

— uphold the application at first instance and annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns appellants;

— order the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;

— order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs;

In the alternative

— quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-162/14;

— refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

— reserve the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court;

— order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The General Court erred in law by requiring appellants to show an interest in raising the first and second pleas; in any event, the General Court erred in its legal characterization of the facts as the appellants have such an interest.

2. The General Court erred in law by requiring appellants to show an interest in raising the third plea; the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation 1225/2009 (‘Basic Regulation’). (1)

3. The General Court erred in law by finding that Regulation 1168/2012 applied to the present anti-dumping investigation (2); the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission’s failure to make a determination on the appellants’ request for market economy treatment does not vitiate the contested regulation.

4. The General Court erred in law by permitting the Institutions to set the anti-dumping duty at the level to counter injury caused by factors other than dumped imports; the General Court erred in law by unduly reversing the burden of proof.

(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 2009, L 343, p. 51). Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation has since been replaced by the identical Article 2(7)(a) of 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).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2012, L 344, p. 1).