Judgment of the General Court Fourth Chamber, 19 March 2025, BSW – management company of "BMC" holding v Council, T-1042/23

• Date: 19 March 2025
• Year: 2025

38

First, as regards the SAP price formula and the impact of the investments of the Union industry, the

Court notes that LG Chem has failed to demonstrate that such factors contributed to the injury

suffered by the Union industry. Consequently, the applicant may not criticise the Commission for

having failed to disregard t he alleged injuriou s effects of those facto rs.

Second, as regards the imports from Türkiye and Japan, LG Chem has failed to establish that the

methodology used by the Commission was not appropriate for determining the suitable level of duty

that wou ld enable t he injury caused to the Union industry by the dumped imports to be eliminated. In

that regard, the Court notes that, by ensuring that the injury margin expresses only the difference

between the weighted average import price and a Union industry target price calculated in

accordance with Article 7(2c) of the basic regulation, the Commission ensured that any injury caused

by other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.

The Court con cludes that LG Chem has failed to establish that th e Commission made manifest errors

of assessment and infringed Article 9(4) of the basic regulation in applying its method for calculating

the injury margin and anti-dumping duty rate.

Since none of the pleas put forward by LG Chem has been upheld, the Court dismisses the action in

its entirety.

XII. COMMON FOREIGN AND SEC URIT Y POLIC Y: RESTR ICTIV E MEASURES

Judgment of the Genera l Court (F ourth Chamber ), 19 March 2025, BSW – management

company of "BMC" holdi ng v Council, T-1042/23

Link to the full text of the judgment

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the

involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine – F re ezing of fund s – List of persons,

entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds a nd economic resources – Inclusion of the applicant’s

name on the list – Support for the Lukashenko regime – Benefit derived from the Lukashenko regime –

Under taking belonging to the Sta te – Error of assessment – Right to property – Freedom to conduct a

business

In its judgment, the General Court dismisses the action for annulment brought by AAT Byelorussian

Steel Wo rk s – management company of ‘Byelorussian Metallurgical Company’ holding (BSW –

management company of ‘BMC’ holding) against the acts by which the Council of the European Union

included that company in August 2023 51 on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive

measures in view of the situation in Belarus and involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression

against Ukraine. It supplements the case-law concerning the consideration – as a factor capable of

demonstrating the support provided by that undertaking to the regime – of tax payments to the State

by a public undertaking wholly owned by that regime.

That judgment has been delivered in the context of a series of restrictive measures adopted by the

European Union since 2004 in view of the situation in Belarus with regard to democracy, the rule of

law and human rights and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The

applicant, one of the largest undertakings in the country, is active in the field of iron and steel

products. Its funds and economic resources have been frozen on the ground that it benefited from

51 Coun cil Implement ing Decision ( CFSP) 2023/1592 of 3 August 2023 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restr ictive measures in

view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 195I, p. 31) and Council

Imp lementing Regulation (E U) 2023/1591 of 3 August 2023 implementing Ar ticle 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concernin g restrictive

measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (OJ 2023 L 195I, p. 1).