CELEX: 62017TN0351
Language: en
Date: 2017-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-351/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Nike European Operations Netherlands and Others v Commission

31.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 249/40
            
         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Nike European Operations Netherlands and Others v Commission
   (Case T-351/17)
   (2017/C 249/54)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands), Hugo Boss AG (Metzingen, Germany), Timberland Europe BV (Almelo, Netherlands), New Balance Athletic Shoes (UK) Ltd (Warrington, United Kingdom), Wolverine Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Wolverine Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017, L 64, p. 72);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulation.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty by the contested regulation: (i) lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFEU and the Basic Regulation (1) and infringes Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation; (ii) is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity as far as the applicants are concerned; (iii) is based on a misapplication of Article 266 TFEU and a misuse of powers by the European Commission and infringes Article 5(4) TEU.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the anti-dumping duty on the applicants’ suppliers preventing repayment of the applicants violates the principle of non-discrimination.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has misused its power in the assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims and violated the principle of non-discrimination.
            
         
      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 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 (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).