Action brought on 14 August 2013 – CPME and Others v Council

(Case T-422/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) (Brussels, Belgium); Artenius España, SL (El Prat del Llobregat, Spain); Cepsa Quimica, SA (Madrid, Spain); Equipolymers Srl (Milan, Italy); Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o. (Włocławek, Poland); Lotte Chemical UK Ltd (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom); M&G Polimeri Italia SpA (Patrica, Italy); Novapet, SA (Zaragoza, Spain); Ottana Polimeri Srl (Ottana, Italy); UAB Indorama Polymers Europe (Klaipėda, Lithuania); UAB Neo Group (Rimkai, Lithuania); and UAB Orion Global pet (Klaipėda) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Declare the application admissible and well-founded ;

Annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU¹ ;

Order the defendant to pay the applicants damages; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(4) and (5) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009² (the “Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation”) and violation of the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Council did not disclose to the applicants the facts and considerations that led to the adoption of the contested decision, and allow a reasonable time for comment.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts and violated Articles 11(2) and 21(1) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation when adopting the contested decision, in particular when concluding in recitals 17 and 23 of the contested decision that material injury is unlikely to recur upon lapse of the measures, and that the continuation of the anti-dumping measures is clearly not in the EU interest.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council manifestly and seriously violated its duties of care and of good administration as it did not disclose to the applicants the facts and considerations that led to the adoption of the contested decision.

Fourth plea in law, raised in support of the claim for damages, alleging that the Council acted unlawfully by adopting the contested decision and thereby caused damages to the applicants for which the EU is liable under Article 340(2) TFEU.

____________

¹ Council Implementing Decision of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013 L 136, p. 12)

² 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).