Action brought on 11 March 2013 - Hanwha SolarOne and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-136/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd (Qidong, China); Hanwha SolarOne Technology Co. Ltd (Lianyungang, China); Hanwha SolarOne Solar Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China); et Hanwha Solar Electric Power Engineering Co. Ltd (Qidong) (represented by: F. Graafsma, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344/1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants;

Annul the Commission's decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants' market economy treatment (MET) claims ; and

Order the defendants to pay the applicants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law.

The applicants request the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 insofar as it applies to the applicants and applicants' MET claims submitted to the European Commission, as required under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the People's Republic of China (Notice of Initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 6 September 2012, OJ C 269/5). The applicants also request the annulment of the decision of 3 January 2013 in which the Commission refused to consider the applicants' MET claims submitted in the above-mentioned investigation.

The applicants submit that Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 decision, and the 3 January decision stating that the Commission would not consider the applicants' MET claims, frustrate the legitimate expectations of the applicants and are applied retroactively to the detriment of the applicants without valid justifications. As a result, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision, manifestly violate the basic principles of legal certainty and good faith.

____________