Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Deichmann v Commission
(Case T-154/17)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
declare the present application admissible;
annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and
order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU owing to the absence of a legal basis for the contested regulation. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU by reason of the failure to adopt measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International and Puma (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 1 and of the principle of legal certainty by reason of the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the imports of footwear carried out during the period of application of Regulations No 1472/2006 2 and No 1294/2009. 3
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 inasmuch as the anti-dumping duties were imposed without a new assessment of the EU interest being undertaken. According to the applicant, it was in any event manifestly incorrect to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties was in the interests of the EU.
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TEU by reason of the adoption of an act that goes further than is necessary to attain its goal.
____________1 Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).
2 Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).
3 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).