do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-604/20: Order of the General Court of 22 December 2021 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission (Dumping — Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China — Act making imports subject to registration — Provisional anti-dumping duty — Suspension of the registration obligation — Definitive anti-dumping duty — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2021-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping measure, coronavirus disease, epidemic, import (EU), non-flat product, originating product, principle of legal certainty, surveillance concerning imports








C_2022119EN.01004302.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/43






Order of the General Court of 22 December 2021 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
(Case T-604/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China - Act making imports subject to registration - Provisional anti-dumping duty - Suspension of the registration obligation - Definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 119/60)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd (Qingyuan, China) and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd (Yuan Tan Town, China) (represented by: M. Maresca, C. Malinconico, D. Maresca, A. Cerruti, A. Malinconico, G. La Malfa Ribolla, D. Guardamagna and M. Guardamagna, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, P. Němečková and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 275, p. 16).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.










3.


Guangdong Haomei New Materials, Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology, the Commission and Airoldi Metalli SpA shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Case C-828/21 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
Date: 2021-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical compound, copper, dangerous substance, market approval, plant health product, principle of proportionality








C_2022073EN.01003101.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/31






Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
(Case C-828/21 P)
(2022/C 73/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgment under appeal;










—


issue a judgment on the substance of the action for annulment or, subsidiary, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
The General Court erred in law in relation to the scope of its judicial review and has breached the appellant’s right to an effective judicial protection.
The General Court infringed the principle of non-arbitrariness by failing to require a harmonized approach in the scope of application of PBT (persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity) criteria.
The General Court infringed the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality.
The General Court breached the rules of procedure by dismissing the appellant’s request to appoint an expert.