13.1.2020 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 10/43
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions laid down in the said Chapter 9 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.
7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimi- nation or equality.
8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.
9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (which included the applicants) and that they (the applicants) had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision.
(1) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).
Case T-716/19: Action brought on 22 October 2019 – Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission
(Case T-716/19)
(2020/C 10/54)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Interpipe Niko Tube OOO (Nikopol, Ukraine) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant PAO (Dnipro, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036;
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. C 10/44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.1.2020
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(3), first paragraph, Article 2(4), first paragraph, Article 2(6), first sentence, and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘the Basic Regulation’) (1) and Article 2.2.2, first sentence, and Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by including in the dumping margin calculation the selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses for the sales made by the applicants to their related domestic trader.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by deducting from the applicants’ export price an amount corresponding to the SG&A expenses of the related trader and a notional profit of an unrelated importer as an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) and Article 2(10), first paragraph, of the Basic Regulation.
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation and unlawfully calculated the applicants’ dumping margin by applying a different methodology for the determination of the normal value and the export price of the applicants as compared to the methodology applied in the previous investigation which led to the imposition of the measure being reviewed.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the rights of defence of the applicants in that the second additional disclosure, received on the same date as the date of publication of the contested regulation, contains new factual elements upon which the applicants were not given the opportunity to comment.
(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 2019 L 176, p. 21).
Case T-717/19: Action brought on 24 October 2019 – Associated British Foods and Others v Commission
(Case T-717/19)
(2020/C 10/55)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Associated British Foods plc (London, United Kingdom) and 5 other applicants (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the decision adopted by the European Commission on 2 April 2019 on the State Aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption (‘GFE’) in so far as it applies to the applicants or any of them;
— order the defendant to meet the applicants’ costs of the proceedings.