CELEX: 62020CN0439
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-439/20 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

9.11.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 378/21
            
         
      Appeal brought on 18 September 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission
      (Case C-439/20 P)
      (2020/C 378/26)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, G. Luengo, Agents)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17 Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd v Commission;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  reject the application at first instance as inadmissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the alternative: reject the application at first instance as unfounded; and in any event;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appellant submits four grounds of appeal.
      First, the General Court committed an error in law related to the admissibility and effectiveness of the application at first instance.
      Second, the General Court committed errors in law concerning the qualification of the collection of duties as ‘retroactive’.
      Third, the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 8(1), (9) and (10), and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1), (9) and (10), and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) when concluding that the collection of duties on imports that have breached the undertaking was not possible.
      Fourth, the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 when concluding that the Council lacked the legal basis to provide that wherever the Commission invalidates an undertaking invoice, the duty was to be collected.
      
         (1)  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).
      
         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 188, p. 93).