Case T-37/25: Action brought on 22 January 2025 – CCCME and Other v Commission
Date: 2025-01-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, carriage of passengers, countervailing charge, electric vehicle, electricity storage device, import (EU), originating product, vehicle parts








C_202501450EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1450


10.3.2025






Action brought on 22 January 2025 – CCCME and Other v Commission


(Case T-37/25)

(C/2025/1450)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Beijing, China) and 22 others (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis and M. Van Luchene, lawyers)

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),










—


Order 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 a violation of Article 10(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘basic AS Regulation’) by initiating the investigation ex officio in the absence of ‘special circumstances’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(4), 8(5), 8(8), 15(1), 15(3), 27(1) and 27(2) of the basic AS Regulation and a manifest error of assessment by selecting an unobjective sample of Chinese exporting producers. More specifically, the applicants claim:






—


An error of law and a manifest error of assessment by applying an illegal method for sampling the Chinese exporting producers; and










—


This illegal method for sampling the Chinese exporting producers resulted in an unobjective injury examination and an inflated weighted average duty rate for the non-sampled exporting producers.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging violations of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(5), 8(6) and 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation, manifest errors of assessment and consequent violations of Article 8(4) of the basic AS Regulation by failing to conduct an objective threat of injury analysis based on positive evidence. More specifically, the applicants claim:






—


A violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(5), 8(6) and 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation, a manifest error of assessment and a consequent violation of Article 8(4) of the basic AS Regulation by conducting an asymmetric threat of injury analysis and/or by failing to consider objectively the impact of the self-imports by the Union producers;










—


A violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the basic AS Regulation, a manifest error of assessment and a consequent violation of Articles 8(4), 8(5) and 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation by failing to ensure product and price comparability between as well as interchangeability and substitutability of the products concerned and the like products;










—


A violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the basic AS Regulation, a manifest error of assessment and a consequent violation of Articles 8(4), 8(5) and 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation by focusing the undercutting analysis on a single year of the injury investigation period (‘IIP’) and by failing to consider how prices interacted over time; and










—


A violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the basic AS Regulation, a manifest error of assessment and a consequent violation of Articles 8(4), 8(5) and 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation by failing to establish price suppression.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(6) of the basic AS Regulation, a manifest error of assessment and a consequent violation of Article 8(8) of the basic AS Regulation by failing to conduct an objective non-attribution analysis based on positive evidence. More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly consider the lack of competitiveness of the European Union’s industry and the intra-EU competition in its non-attribution analysis.






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

(2)  
            OJ L 176, 2016, p. 55.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1450/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)