Case C-59/25 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2025 by Zhejiang Sunflower Great Health Co. Ltd, formerly Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Ltd, Sunowe Solar GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2024 in Case T-733/19, Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology and Sunowe Solar v Commission
Date: 2025-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, countervailing charge, import (EU), invoicing, originating product, photovoltaic cell, principle of proportionality, semi-metal, solar collector








C_202501534EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1534


17.3.2025






Appeal brought on 29 January 2025 by Zhejiang Sunflower Great Health Co. Ltd, formerly Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Ltd, Sunowe Solar GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2024 in Case T-733/19, Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology and Sunowe Solar v Commission


(Case C-59/25 P)

(C/2025/1534)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Zhejiang Sunflower Great Health Co. Ltd, formerly Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Ltd, Sunowe Solar GmbH (represented by: J. Cornelis and M. Van Luchene, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1329 (1) of 6 August 2019 invalidating the invoices issued by Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Ltd in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570; and










—


order the European Commission to pay the appellant’s’ costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-733/19;










—


in alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and










—


reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on six grounds of appeal.
First, the contested judgment failed to take into account the principle of proportionality in finding that the Commission could legitimately order the invalidation of invoices and collection of anti-dumping and countervailing duties after the implementing regulations which imposed those anti-dumping and countervailing duties, and which were the basis for the undertaking agreement, had expired.
Second, the contested judgment misinterpreted Article 8(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) 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 (‘basic anti-dumping Regulation’) and Article 13(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (3) 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 (‘basic anti-subsidy Regulation’), and misapplied the findings of the Court of Justice in Commission v Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System and Council v Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System and Commission (C-439/20 P and C-441/20 P, EU:C:2023:211) in finding that the Commission could legitimately order the collection of anti-dumping and countervailing duties after the implementing regulations had expired.
Third, the contested judgment distorted the facts in finding that clause 5.18 of the undertaking was applicable to sales made to two entities established in Italy, on the basis of its erroneous finding that those entities were related to the appellants.
Fourth, the contested judgment violated fundamental legal principles and failed to take into account principles established by the Court of Justice in finding that sales made to related parties before September 2014 and used for the construction of solar parks could be invalidated.
Fifth, the contested judgment failed to take into account findings of the Court of Justice in European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) v. Giant (China) (C-61/16 P, EU:C:2017:968) by concluding that a breach of the undertaking could be found based on a theoretical / hypothetical risk.
Sixth, the contested judgment violated the principle of proportionality in ruling that invoices relating to goods that remained in storage were in breach of the undertaking.


(1)  
            OJ 2019, L 207, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21.

(3)  
            OJ 2016, L 176, p. 55.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1534/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)