Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-426/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, September 07, 2018

• Resolution Date: September 07, 2018
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-426/18

Action brought on 11 July 2018 - Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission

(Case T-426/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bizbike (Wielsbeke, Netherlands), Hartmobile BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

declare the application admissible;

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/671 of 2 May 2018 making imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration¹ on the grounds set out in the application; and

order the European Commission and any interveners to pay legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging the existence of the manifest error of assessment of facts and law resulting in the infringement of Article 10(4)(c) of Regulation 2016/1036 ² and specifically the of requirement of establishing a sufficient degree of importers’ knowledge or awareness of dumping and injury sustained by the Union industry for the purposes of imposing registration of imports.

Second plea in law, alleging that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation in the application of Article 10(4)(c) of Regulation 2016/1036 were breached.

The applicants claim that Regulation 2018/671 would breach the principle of legal certainty by imputing deemed awareness of the alleged existence of dumping and injury on the part of the applicants and attributing knowledge of a factual situation to them before any legal measure was adopted.

Regulation 2018/671 would also breach the principle of legitimate expectations by developing an interpretation of deemed awareness in Regulation 2018/671 that would have rendered the exceptional character of, and requirements for, the process of registration of imports ineffective.

Third plea in law, alleging that the manifest error in fact and law resulted in a breach of Article 10(4)(d) of Regulation 2016/1036 and Article 16(4)(d) of Regulation 2016/1037³ by failing to evaluate all the relevant evidence relating to the relevant economic factors affecting the performance of the Union industry to establish injury and a causal link with imports of the product concerned.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ rights of defence were violated by failing to provide prompt and timeous access to key...