Case T-24/18: Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission
Date: 2018-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, equal treatment, footwear industry, import (EU), originating product, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law








C_2018094EN.01003201.xml










12.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/32





Action brought on 20 January 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission
(Case T-24/18)
(2018/C 094/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: adidas International Trading BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Gabor Footwear GmbH (Rosenheim, Germany), Gabor Shoes AG (Rosenheim), HR Online GmbH (Osnabrück, Germany), Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands), Timberland Europe BV (Almelo, Netherlands), Wolverine Europe BV (Amsterdam,), Wolverine Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1982 of 31 October 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 Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co. Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co., Ltd, implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 285, p. 14); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ 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 the European Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by the contested regulation:






(i)


lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and the basic Regulation (1) and infringes Article 9(4) of the basis Regulation;










(ii)


is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the applicants are concerned; and










(iii)


is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the European Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TFEU.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment of the applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the applicants’ suppliers to impose a retroactive anti-dumping duty and violated the principle of non-discrimination; and










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation as well as with the obligation to provide reasons as mandated by Article 296 TFEU.






(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).