CELEX: 62010CN0249
Language: en
Date: 2010-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-249/10 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

31.7.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 209/26
            
         Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-249/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 209/37
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, avocats)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l'industrie de la chaussure (CEC)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 insofar as the General Court did not annul the contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Adopt a definitive ruling and annul the contested Regulation in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant submits that the General Court:
   
                
            
            
               Erred in law in finding that Articles 2(7) and 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (1) do not oblige the Institutions to make market economy treatment (‘MET’) and individual treatment (‘IT’) determinations in situations where they apply sampling;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation by not issuing the MET/IT determinations of the sampled Chinese exporting producers within three months of the initiation of the investigation;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation by not informing the non-sampled Chinese exporting producers regarding the examination of their MET/IT claims within three months of the initiation of the investigation;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions did not establish cooperation during the investigation and therefore that the Community industry did not meet the standing requirement imposed by Article 4(1) juncto Article 5(4) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, resulting in an erroneous injury and causation assessment in terms of Article 3 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law in finding that Article 6(1) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation does not prohibit the Institutions from collecting sampling information prior to the initiation of the investigation;
            
         
                
            
            
               In the alternative, erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions did not violate Article 6(9) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation by exceeding the 15-month deadline for concluding an anti-dumping investigation;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law when making its characterisation of the legal effects of various information on the injury analysis pursuant to Article 3 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions did not respect their duty to carefully and impartially examine all relevant aspects of the anti-dumping investigation;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law when making its characterisation of the legal effects of certain information on the obligation of the investigating authority to state reasons;
            
         
                
            
            
               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions' failure to assess the impact on the Community industry of factors other than the imports concerned violated Article 3 of the Basic Anti Dumping Regulation.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
   OJ L 56, p. 1