CELEX: 62018CN0345
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-345/18 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2018 by Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2018 in Case T-211/16: Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission

201807060171993492018/C 259/403452018CJC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180525282922Case C-345/18 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2018 by Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2018 in Case T-211/16: Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2592018EN2820120180525EN0040282292Appeal brought on 25 May 2018 by Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2018 in Case T-211/16: Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission
   (Case C-345/18 P)2018/C 259/40Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Appellants: Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellants claim that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            set aside the General Court’s judgment to the extent that it erred by impermissibly substituting its own reasoning when evaluating the second plea in the appellants’ application;
         
      
            —
         
         
            set aside the General Court’s judgment on the grounds of manifestly distorting the evidence put before it in respect of the evolution and final situation of market share of the Union industry;
         
      
            —
         
         
            uphold the appellants’ second plea in law concerning the General Court’s defective evaluation of the market share situation and exercise its powers to adjudicate itself on the this plea and render final judgment;
         
      
            —
         
         
            in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court to properly decide upon the appellants’ plea on this point;
         
      
            —
         
         
            confirm that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment and breached Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation (
                  1
               ) when it arrived at the conclusion that the Commission did not commit any manifest error of assessment when adopting its findings relating to material injury;
         
      
            —
         
         
            confirm that the General Court did not provide sufficient reasoning and engaged in contradictory reasoning; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the Commission to pay the appellants’ legal costs and expenses of this procedure as well as the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings at first instance.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellants rely upon three grounds of appeal. All three pleas in law presented to the Court of Justice relate to the second plea submitted to the General Court. In summary, the pleas in law raised before the Court of Justice are the following:
   
            1.
         
         
            The General Court erred in law by substituting its own reasoning for that of the Commission when evaluating the significance of the decrease of the market share of the Union industry, in both relative and absolute terms, and/or manifestly distorted the evidence put before it in respect of the drop in the market share of the Union industry.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            The General Court made a manifest error of assessment and breached Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the Basic Regulation when it reached the conclusion that the Commission did not commit any manifest error of assessment when adopting its findings relating to material injury.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            The General Court did not provide adequate reasoning for its determination on this point since it failed to explain why the Commission’s error in the assessment of the market share of the Union industry did not justify the annulment of the contested regulation as requested by the appellants. In addition, the General Court engaged in contradictory reasoning since it found an error of assessment in the Commission’s evaluation of the market share of the Union industry but ultimately ruled in its favour.
         
      (
         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.