CELEX: 62015CN0239
Language: en
Date: 2015-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-239/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission

20150731050616812015/C 270/192392015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150522151622Case C-239/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1520120150522EN0019152162Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission
   (Case C-239/15 P)2015/C 270/19Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: RFA International, LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, Prof. D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor, E. Borovikov, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            Set aside the judgment of the General Court;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Give a final judgment on the pleas of the appellant’s action for annulment where the stage of the procedure so permits, and partially annul the decisions contested at first instance;
         
      
            —
         
         
            In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;
         
      
            —
         
         
            Order the Commission to pay the costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant submits that the General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of the appellant’s pleas in law in its judgment as follows:
   
            —
         
         
            The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the Commission’s position on the relevance of a single economic entity (an integrated sales department of the exporting producer, located outside of the country of export) for the purposes of applying Article 2(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (
                  1
               ) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in law by abstaining from ruling on the arguments of the Appellant based on the case law in Interpipe and Nikopolsky, thereby affecting the appellant’s right to judicial review,
         
      
            —
         
         
            The General Court erred in law, including in its assessment of the case law it examined, when it placed the burden of proof concerning the extent of the amount of adjustment under Article 2(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation on the interested party who claims that the adjustment is excessive on account of a demonstrated existence of a single economic entity;
         
      
            —
         
         
            The General Court erred in law by ruling that the existence of a single economic entity was not an issue in the contested decisions and before the General Court, and by basing its ruling on the premise that the Commission’s rejection of the existence of a single economic entity was not contained in the text of the contested decisions; the General Court failed to assess that such a rejection by the Commission was made in the parallel interim review investigation conducted pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, relating to the same imports and covering the same investigation period.
         
      (
         1
      )	Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ L 343, p. 51