CELEX: 62014TN0191
Language: en
Date: 2014-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-191/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council

19.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 151/31
            
         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council
   (Case T-191/14)
   2014/C 151/40
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor and B. Hartnett, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul Articles 1 and 4 of the Council Regulation (EU) 1387/2013 (1) of 17th December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Council Regulation (EU) 1344/20111 to the extent that it deprived the applicant of its rights to the entitlement of the benefit of three duty suspensions under former TARIC Codes 2918.2900.80, 3811.2900.10 and 3811.9000.30 on the grounds that it contains manifest errors in law and substance and was also adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and safeguards;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors in law and substance when determining that the applicable conditions were satisfied for terminating the three autonomous duty suspensions by failing to properly apply the test for establishing the existence of sufficient quantities of similar or substitutable quantities of products made in the European Union as well as the criterion of identical, equivalent or substitute products.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that that the defendant breached essential procedural requirements and safeguards put in place to ensure that the procedural rules, requiring opposing companies to reply within due time and also to prevent misleading and inaccurate information being provided in objections to the continuation of autonomous duty suspension, are properly applied and implemented.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201)