Action brought on 9 Avril 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

(Case T-243/19)

(2019/C 206/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 (1), as far as the applicant is concerned; and

— order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by finding that a subsidy would have been granted through the applicant’s purchase of engines and batteries, and thereby would have violated Articles 1(1) and 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2). This plea consists of four limbs: — the defendant would have failed to establish that the Government of China would have entrusted or directed the Chinese engine and batteries suppliers of the applicant; — the defendant would have failed to prove that any alleged financial contribution from the Government of China would have conferred a benefit to the applicant; — the defendant would have based its conclusions in respect of the applicant on an erroneous application of Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037; and — the defendant would have failed to prove the link between locally purchased engines and batteries and e-bikes exported to the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error in the calculation of the subsidy amount by wrongfully including benefits which would have been unrelated to e-bikes released for free circulation in the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by finding that the use of bank acceptance notes would have constituted a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish that the use of bank acceptance notes conferred a benefit to the applicant.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish the specificity of the alleged subsidy granted through bank acceptance notes and thereby violated Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant would have obtained a benefit through the acquisition of land use rights.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other.

(1) 1Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 5).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55).