Case T-130/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others/Commission
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, abuse of power, anti-dumping duty, equal treatment, footwear industry, originating product, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law








C_2018152EN.01004701.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/47





Action brought on 27 February 2018 — adidas International Trading and Others/Commission
(Case T-130/18)
(2018/C 152/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: adidas International Trading BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and 27 Others (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) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing 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 certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30); and










—


order the 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 the Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 (1).










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 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232:






—


lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036 (2) and infringes Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036;










—


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










—


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














3.


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










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 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.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the assessment with regard to the companies listed in Annexes III and VI of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 by the Commission and ordering the rejection of the anti-dumping duty reimbursement requests concerning imports from those companies is based on a manifest error of assessment, misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and is in breach of the obligation of due diligence and proper administration.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing 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 certain exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 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).