CELEX: 62017CN0237
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-237/17 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2017 by Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-163/14: Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

24.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 239/28
            
         Appeal brought on 8 May 2017 by Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-163/14: Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council
   (Case C-237/17 P)
   (2017/C 239/35)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois, avocat, S. De Knop, advocaat, M. Meulenbelt, advocaat, A. Willems, avocat)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14;
            
         
               —
            
            
               uphold the application at first instance and annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns appellants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs, and its own costs, both at first instance and on appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs;
            
         In the alternative
   
               —
            
            
               quash the judgment of the General Court in case T-163/14;
            
         
               —
            
            
               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               reserve the costs at first instance and on appeal for final judgment by the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order any other parties to the appeal to pay their own costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The General Court erred in law by requiring appellants to show an interest in raising the first and second pleas; in any event, the General Court erred in its legal characterization of the facts as the appellants have such an interest.