Case T-633/25: Action brought on 15 September 2025 – Pakistan Ethanol Manufacturers Association v Commission
Date: 2025-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Pakistan, biofuel, ethanol, generalised preferences, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence, surveillance concerning imports, tariff preference








C_202505971EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5971


17.11.2025






Action brought on 15 September 2025 – Pakistan Ethanol Manufacturers Association v Commission


(Case T-633/25)

(C/2025/5971)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pakistan Ethanol Manufacturers Association (Lahore, Pakistan) (represented by: V. Akritidis, M. Krestiyanova and J.-B. Blancardi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s application for annulment admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the contested Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1206 of 19 June 2025 on the suspension of the GSP+ tariff preferences with regard to imports of ethanol originating in Pakistan (C/2025/3866) published in the Official Journal of the European Union with reference OJ L, 2025/1206 on 20 June 2025; and,










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s unjustifiable use of the wrong legal basis (Article 30 of the Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 (1)), because it could not fulfil the requirements for recourse to a specific legal basis (Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the law when applying Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. The Applicant relies on seven limbs to support its argument.






—


First, the Commission has unclearly defined which customs codes have been used in its assessment and the Commission lacked detailed data for 2022 and 2023.










—


Secondly, the Commission has erred in determining serious disturbances and failed to provide reasoning in support of its findings.










—


Thirdly, the Commission has not explained why it has selected the specific reference period.










—


Fourthly, the Commission arbitrarily selected factors to determine serious market disturbance and has explained why it disregarded others.










—


Fifth, there was discrepancy in the Commission’s production data and the industry’s reporting.










—


Sixth, the Commission’s findings about the Union industry’s market share analysis do not support that there is any serious disturbance.










—


Seventh, the Commission based its pricing and sales analyses on insufficient reasoning.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not establish the causal link between imports of ethanol from Pakistan and the alleged serious market disturbance under Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012. The third plea in law contains the following three limbs.






—


First, the Commission has made a manifest error of appreciation of the facts when concluding that imports of ethanol have caused the alleged serious market disturbance.










—


Secondly, the Commission has failed to consider other factors which break the causal link, such as the effect of Covid-19, the war in Ukraine and the EU Renewable Energy Policy Framework.










—


Thirdly, the Commission did not consider the fact that most of the Pakistani ethanol imported into the EU was destined for the EU ethanol manufacturers themselves.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to appreciate the trade vulnerabilities of the holder of GSP+ status and acted contrary to the spirit of the GSP+ Scheme.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to disclose the initial request and underlying data for its assessment and thus the rights of defense of the applicant were violated.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that there is pervasive failure to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU. The Commission’s assessment lacked sufficient reasoning or it used fragmentary reasoning.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ 2012, L 303, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5971/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)