Maxcom v City Cycle Industries (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ C-248/15 (26 January 2017)

Maxcom v City Cycle Industries (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ C-248/15 (26 January 2017)

The Court of Justice held that the General Court did not err in law by annulling Article 1(1) and (3) of Regulation No 501/2013 as regards City Cycle. The Council was not entitled to infer circumvention or transhipment solely from non-cooperation or change in trade pattern without specific evidence. The General Court's reasoning was adequate, and there was no distortion of facts or infringement of procedural rights. The appeals were rejected as unfounded.

Citation
[2017] EUECJ C-248/15
Parties
Appellant: Maxcom Ltd; Appellant: Council of the European Union; Appellant: European Commission; Respondent: City Cycle Industries
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Joined Appeals (c‑248/15 P, C‑254/15 P, C‑260/15 P) From General Court Judgment / Court of Justice (final Appellate Review)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; General Court judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Measures, Circumvention, Burden of Proof, Procedural Rights, Standard of Review
EU Trade Law Administrative Law Anti Dumping Measures Circumvention Burden of Proof Procedural Rights Standard of Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxcom Ltd

Appellant

Council of the European Union

Appellant

European Commission

Appellant

City Cycle Industries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joined Appeals (c‑248/15 P, C‑254/15 P, C‑260/15 P) From General Court Judgment / Court of Justice (final Appellate Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in annulling Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 as regards City Cycle Industries
  2. 2 Whether the Council and Commission correctly applied Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 regarding circumvention
  3. 3 Whether the General Court failed to provide adequate reasons or distorted facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Justice held that the General Court did not err in law by annulling Article 1(1) and (3) of Regulation No 501/2013 as regards City Cycle. The Council was not entitled to infer circumvention or transhipment solely from non-cooperation or change in trade pattern without specific evidence. The General Court's reasoning was adequate, and there was no distortion of facts or infringement of procedural rights. The appeals were rejected as unfounded.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; General Court judgment upheld

Orders

  • Maxcom, Council, and Commission to bear their own costs
  • City Cycle's exemption from anti-dumping duty confirmed