CELEX: 62013CN0393
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-393/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission

21.9.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 274/10
            
         Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission
   (Case C-393/13 P)
   2013/C 274/17
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Alumina d.o.o., European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               dismiss the action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs relating to the appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   The Council relies on a sole ground of appeal against the judgment of 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11, by which the General Court annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (1)
   
   The Council submits that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘sales carried out in the ordinary course of trade’ as used in Article 2(1) and (6) of the Basic Regulation. (2) Specifically, the Council argues that sales may take place ‘in the ordinary course of trade’ even if the seller has increased its sale price by incorporating in that price a premium to cover the risk of non-payment or of late payment.
   According to the Council, the contrary interpretation adopted by the General Court is, in addition, incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.
   
      (1)  OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1.
   
      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).