EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/52

Action brought on 28 February 2018 — Buffalo — Boots/Commission

(Case T-142/18)

(2018/C 152/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Buffalo — Boots GmbH (Hochheim am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. De Knop, A. Willems and C. Zimmermann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 that by proceeding without a valid legal basis, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1) violates the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU and, in any event, the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 266 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (2) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (3),’ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (4), and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036; in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

(3) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EU) No 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).