Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (C-15/12 P)
Judgment
The appeal
The first two grounds of appeal
Findings of the Court
18

Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (C-15/12 P)

Judgment of 19 Sept 2013law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-15-12/para_18@2026-11-10

18In this connection, it is to be emphasised that the burden of proof lies with the institutions, which must prove that the circumstances have changed in order to apply, in the review investigation, a method different from that implemented during the original investigation.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-15/12 P · ECLI:EU:C:2013:572
Decided: 19 Sept 2013
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Rapporteur: G. Arestis
Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón
Bench: 5 judges
R. Silva de Lapuerta, G. Arestis, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, J.L. Da Cruz Vilaça
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0015

Topics

History · 1 version

19 Sept 2013Reading

Connections

Cited by 14: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd v European Commission (C-718/20 P)3 provisions; Interpipe Niko Tube OOO and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant PAO v European Commission (T-716/19)2 provisions; RFA International, LP v European Commission (C-56/19 P)2 provisions; Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v Distillerie Bonollo SpA and Others (C-461/18 P); PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council of the European Union (T-139/14); PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union (T-80/14); PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council of the European Union (T-121/14); PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council of the European Union (T-120/14); Unitec Bio SA v Council of the European Union (T-111/14); LDC Argentina SA v Council of the European Union (T-118/14); Cargill SACI v Council of the European Union (T-117/14); Molinos Río de la Plata SA and Others v Council of the European Union (T-112/14); RFA International, LP v European Commission (T-466/12)2 provisions; ‘Valimar’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna (C-374/12)
Cites 5: Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community; Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (Codified version); Council of the European Union v Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd (C-337/09 P); Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (T-423/09); European Commission v Ireland (C-82/10)