Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019.Caviro Distillerie Srl and Others v European Commission.Appeal — Commercial policy — Dumping — Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 3(2), (3) and (5) — No material harm — Manifest error of assessment — Determination of injury — Evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the EU industry — Market share.Case C-345/18 P.

Judgment // 10/07/2019 // 2 min read
bookmark 2 citations

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission

(Case C‑345/18 P) ( 1 )

(Appeal — Commercial policy — Dumping — Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 3(2), (3) and (5) — No material harm — Manifest error of assessment — Determination of injury — Evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the EU industry — Market share)

  1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Harm — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits

(Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 3(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6))

(see paras 14-17, 40)

  1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Harm — Factors to be taken into consideration — Assessment as a whole

(Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 3(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6)

(see paras 19-22)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

(see para. 66)

  1. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)

(see paras 77, 78)

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the appeal;

  2. Orders Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.