Case T-360/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Jana shoes and Others v Commission
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, delegation of power, footwear industry, import (EU), institutional balance (EU), legal basis, originating product, principle of legal certainty








C_2017249EN.01004201.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/42






Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Jana shoes and Others v Commission
(Case T-360/17)
(2017/C 249/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Jana shoes GmbH & Co. KG (Detmold, Germany), Novi International GmbH & Co. KG (Detmold), shoe.com GmbH & Co. KG (Detmold), Wendel GmbH & Co. KG Schuhproduktionen International (Detmold) and Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen (Detmold) (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing 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 Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017, L 64, p. 72);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that without a valid legal basis, Regulation 2017/423 violates the principle of conferral under Articles (5)(1) and 5(2) TUE 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 judgment in joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, C&J Clark International, Regulation 2017/423 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 and Council Regulation (EU) 1294/2009’, Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1), 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, Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 21 of Regulation 2016/1036 and that in any event, it is 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; Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.






(1)  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).