Appeal brought on 30 April 2024 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 February 2024 in Case T-762/20, Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission
(Case C-319/24 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, G. Luengo and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co. Ltd, Sinopec Great Wall Energy & Chemical (Ningxia) Co. Ltd, Central-China Company, Sinopec Chemical Commercial Holding Co. Ltd, European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kuraray Europe GmbH, Sekisui Specialty Chemicals Europe SL, Wegochem Europe BV
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment under appeal;
order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.
First, the General Court erred in the interpretation and application of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 2016/1036 1 (‘the basic regulation’) when finding that the Commission erred in law by using the highest of the normal values of the other cooperating exporting producers as facts available for each product type where Sinopec Ningxia failed to provide the necessary information.
Second, the General Court erred in the interpretation and application of Articles 2(10) of the basic regulation, as well as the principle of good administration, and distorted the facts when finding that the Commission failed to demonstrate that a number of adjustments on the export price were necessary to make a fair comparison, that the applicant met the required burden of proof under Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, and that the Commission imposed an unreasonable burden by finding that the request for adjustments was unsubstantiated.
Third, the General Court erred in interpreting and applying Article 2(10)(i) of the basic regulation and committed an error of law in defining the burden of proof of the Commission as regards the Commission’s finding that Sinopec Central-China performed functions similar to an agent working on a commission basis.
____________
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).