Case C-572/18 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2018 in Case T-577/17: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU production, customs regulations, customs union, economic conditions, inward processing, iron and steel industry








C_2018436EN.01002501.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/25






Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2018 in Case T-577/17: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission
(Case C-572/18 P)
(2018/C 436/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (represented by: M. Günes, L. C. Heinisch, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the 2 July 2018 order of the General Court in Case T-577/17 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission;










—


give a ruling declaring the action for annulment to be admissible;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings going to the substance of the case;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants challenge the contested order upon the grounds that it is based upon significant errors in law. The appellants raise five arguments concerning errors in law:






—


First, the General Court erred in holding that the UCC (1) and related delegated and implementing regulations do not confer on the Commission the power to adopt decisions that are binding on the national customs authorities in the examination of the economic conditions.










—


Second, the General Court erred in holding that the role of the Commission during the examination of economic conditions is purely procedural in nature.










—


Third, the General Court erred in treating the judgment of 11 May 2006 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods (C-11/05) as binding legal precedent for the interpretation of Article 259(5) UCC IA (2).










—


Fourth, the General Court erred in failing to consider the September 2016 administrative arrangement concerning the application of Article 211(6) UCC & Article 259 UCC IA as evidence of the binding nature of the Commission’s conclusions on the economic conditions.










—


Fifth, the General Court erred in failing to consider that the appellants were directly and individually concerned by the Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC) (OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC IA) (OJ 2015, L 343, p. 558).