Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co. Ltd and Others v European Commission (T-762/20)

Judgment of 21 Feb 2024

law://eu/cjeu/2020/t-762-20/para_129@2026-11-14

129It is true that, according to the case-law, Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, unlike Article 2.4 of the anti-dumping agreement, does not state that the ‘authorities shall indicate to the parties in question what information is necessary to ensure a fair comparison and shall not impose an unreasonable burden of proof on those parties’. However, in so far as the requirements under the latter article relate to the right of the parties to an administrative procedure to be given the information necessary in order to be able to participate in it on an informed basis, and to the intensity of the burden of proof which they must discharge, those requirements form part of the general principles of EU law and, in particular, of the principle of good administration, also set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Accordingly, the EU institutions are required to indicate to the party requesting an adjustment the information necessary for that purpose, and not to impose an unreasonable burden of proof on that party (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 July 2008, Huvis v Council, T‑221/05, not published, EU:T:2008:258, paragraphs 77 and 78; see also, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 10 October 2012, Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council, T‑150/09, not published, EU:T:2012:529, paragraph 124, and of 11 September 2014, Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council, T‑443/11, EU:T:2014:774, paragraph 166).

Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co. Ltd and Others v European Commission (T-762/20)

Connections

History · 1 version

Key facts