Action brought on 10 Avril 2019 — Cambodia and CRF/Commission

(Case T-246/19)

(2019/C 213/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of Cambodia and Cambodia Rice Federation (CRF) (Phnom Penh, Cambodia) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019; (1) and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the limitation of the notion of European Union producers to those producers of the like or directly competing products that are manufactured using raw materials (paddy rice) produced in the European Union violates Article 22(1) and 23 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012. (2) In the alternative, the defendant’s approach would have violated Article 22(2) of Regulation No 978/2012.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by relying on incorrect or inaccurate data or data that would have not been related specifically to the like product, the defendant would have failed to assess properly the ‘serious difficulties’, in violation of Article 23 of Regulation No 978/2012. This would have made it impossible to assess properly if the conditions of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 are met in relation to the like product as defined in Article 22(2) of Regulation No 978/2012.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant carried out a comparison of the Cambodian import prices and the European Union prices in a way that would have violated Article 22(1) and 23 of Regulation No 978/2012.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s causation analysis violates Article 22(1) of Regulation No 978/2012 as the serious difficulties faced by the European Union industry would have not been a sufficiently direct consequence of the Cambodian imports’ volume and prices. To the extent that the Regulation 2019/67 would rely on a cumulative analysis, it would also violate Article 22(1) of Regulation No 978/2012.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to disclose several essential facts or considerations or details underlying such essential facts or considerations in violation of Articles 17(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1083/2013 of 28 August 2013, (3) Article 38 of Regulation No 978/2012 and the applicants’ rights of defence.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the constituted file is largely deficient and would miss important sets of information. This would constitute a violation of Article 14 of Commission Delegated Regulation No 1083/2013, Article 38 of Regulation No 978/2012 and the applicants’ rights of defence.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019 imposing safeguard measures with regard to imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma (OJ L 15, 17.1.2019, p. 5).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ L 303, 31.10.2012, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1083/2013 of 28 August 2013 establishing rules related to the procedure for temporary withdrawal of tariff preferences and adoption of general safeguard measures under Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 16).