Appeal brought on 18 August 2021 by Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia, SL, Puma Retail AG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2021 in Case T-781/16, Puma and Others v Commission

(Case C-507/21 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia, SL, Puma Retail AG (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under the appeal;

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395¹ of 18 August 2016, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647² of 13 September 2016 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731³ of 28 September 2016; and

order the European Commission to pay the Appellants’ costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-781/16

or alternatively,

refer the case back to the General Court; and

reserve the costs of the proceeding before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on three grounds of appeal.

First, the contested judgment failed to address the essence of the Appellants’ first plea, thereby resulting in a breach of the obligation to state reasons.

Second, the contested judgment applied the wrong legal test when addressing the Appellants’ claim under part of the third plea that the contested Regulations breached the principle of proportionality.

Third, in the context of part of the Appellants’ fourth plea, the contested judgment misinterpreted Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223⁴ of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and ignored the legal principle that no advantage may be gained from one’s own wrong.

____________

¹ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing 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 produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016, L 225, p. 52).

² Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016, L 245, p. 16).

³ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing 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 Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016, L 262, p. 4).

⁴ OJ 2016, L 41, p. 3.