Case T-35/25: Action brought on 21 January 2025 – Bayerische Motoren Werke and Others v Commission
Date: 2025-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, carriage of passengers, countervailing charge, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, import (EU), originating product, vehicle parts








C_202501250EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1250


3.3.2025






Action brought on 21 January 2025 – Bayerische Motoren Werke and Others v Commission


(Case T-35/25)

(C/2025/1250)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany), BMW Brilliance Automotive Ltd (Shenyang City, China), Spotlight Automotive Ltd (Yangshe Town, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicants; and










—


Order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by failing to include the largest single Chinese exporting producer of battery electric vehicles (‘BEVs’) during the investigation period in the sample of exporting producers, violating Articles 27 and Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (the ‘Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation’), as well as the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and violated Articles 15(3) and 27 of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation by failing to take into account the individual duty calculated for the largest single Chinese exporting producer of BEVs during the investigation period for the purposes of establishing the weighted average duty for non-sampled cooperating exporting producers. In particular, the applicants submit that:






—


The largest single Chinese exporting producer of BEVs must be regarded as one of the ‘parties in the sample’ within the meaning of Article 15(3) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation; and










—


The Commission was required to take into account the individual duty established for the largest single Chinese exporting producer as forming part of the best information available when establishing the weighted average duty for non-sampled cooperating exporting producers, given that the subsidisation margins of all three companies included in the original sample were each partially based on Article 28 of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and violated Articles 8(8) and 15(1) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation by imposing countervailing duties on BEVs imports from China without having carried out a proper threat of material injury analysis. In particular, the applicants submit that:






—


The Commission failed to identify a change in circumstances, which was ‘clearly foreseen’ and ‘imminent’ within the meaning of Article 8(8) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation;










—


The Commission failed to base its threat of injury analysis on economic reality and, in particular, consider evidence that BEVs imports from China are likely to decline in future as a result of localisation of production in the European Union; and










—


The Commission did not take into account the sui generis nature of the Union BEVs market and the impact of regulation in its threat of injury analysis.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 8(5) and 8(6) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation by failing to carry out a proper causation analysis. In particular, the applicants submit that:






—


The Commission violated Article 8(5) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, by incorrectly attributing the threat of injury to self-imports by EU BEVs producers and disregarding the positive effects of self-imports by EU BEVs producers.










—


The Commission violated Article 8(6) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation by not taking into account the sui generis nature of the Union BEVs market and the impact of regulation on the situation of the EU BEVs producers.










(1)  
            OJ L, 2024/2754, 29.10.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1250/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)