Case T-347/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — FLA Europe v Commission
Date: 2017-06-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), institutional balance (EU), legal basis, originating product, principle of legal certainty








C_2017249EN.01003901.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/39






Action brought on 2 June 2017 — FLA Europe v Commission
(Case T-347/17)
(2017/C 249/53)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: FLA Europe NV (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and B. Natens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare its application initiating proceedings 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; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU and, in the alternative, infringement of the principle of institutional balance laid down in Article 13(2) TEU.






—


The contested regulation lacks any legal basis.










—


The Commission did not have the power to adopt the contested regulation.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 266 TFEU by reason of a failure to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, C&J Clark International (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and infringement of the principle of legal certainty (prohibition of retroactivity) in so far as anti-dumping duties were imposed on goods that are in free circulation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in so far as anti-dumping duties were imposed without a fresh assessment of the EU interest.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5(1) and (4) TEU in so far as an act was adopted which goes further than is necessary to attain the objective being pursued.






(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).