(AGENPARL) - Roma, 1 Marzo 2023(AGENPARL) – mer 01 marzo 2023 Comunicato stampa n. 7.560
Il 7 marzo una seduta del Consiglio comunale interamente dedicata alle interrogazioni
Benevento, 1° marzo 2023 – Il presidente Renato Parente ha fissato una nuova seduta del Consiglio comunale in modalità mista per martedì 7 marzo alle ore 9:30. Ecco gli argomenti che saranno trattati nel corso dell’assise consiliare interamente dedicata alle interrogazioni (cd. “question time”):
– Interrogazione prot. n. 75244/2022 a firma del consigliere De Stasio: Scuole Federico Torre 2 e Nicola Sala;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 75891/2022 a firma del consigliere De Stasio: Scuola Pietà — contributo MIUR;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 105780/2022 a firma dei consiglieri Perifano e Sguera: assunzione di uno Specialista della comunicazione istituzionale;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 106024/2022 a firma del consigliere De Stasio: pista ciclabile Ponte Santa Maria degli Angeli — Piazzale Catullo e tratto collegamento Via dei Mulini;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 109585/2022 a firma del consigliere De Stasio — bonifica falda acquifera contaminata da tetracloroetilene;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 117671/2022 a firma del consigliere De Stasio: servizi igienici pubblici zona Santa Colomba (mercato) ;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 120611/2022 primo firmatario consigliere Megna: ordinanza avviso meteo allerta arancione giorno 22/11/2022;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 121871/2022 a firma del consigliere Sguera: immobile di proprietà comunale sito in Piazza Duomo;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 124157/2022 a firma del consigliere De Stasio: megaparcheggio di via del Pomerio: necessità di riparazioni urgenti;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 124724/2022 primo firmatario consigliere De Lorenzo: complesso sportivo Libertà (ex CRAL) sito in via Cosentini;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 4416/2023 primo firmatario consigliere Fioretti: stato di attuazione procedure di gara lavori di collegamento SS. Appia e strada comunale di collegamento Chiesa S.Anna e S.Antonio;
– Interrogazione prot. n. 14715/2023 a firma dei consilgieri Miceli e Perifano: sicurezza pedonale quartiere Cretarossa e degrado aree a verde limitrofe.
Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
PRESS RELEASE No
38
/23
Luxembourg,
1
March
2023
Judgment
s
of the General Court in Case
T
–
480
/20
and
T
–
540
/20
| He
ngshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and
Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry
v
Commission
A subsidy granted by China can be attributed to Egypt a
s the country of
origin or export of a product subject to countervailing measures
Countervailing duties may be imposed on undertakings which are established in the China
–
Egypt Suez
Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone but which are subsidised by China
Follo
wing a complaint lodged on
1
April
2019, the European Commission adopted Implementing Regulation
2020/776 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics
(â??GFFâ??) o
riginating in China and Egypt.
1
Fo
llowing a second complaint lodged on
24
April
2019, the Commission moreover adopted Implementing Regulation
2020/870 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty
imposed on imports of continuous
filament glass fibre products (â??GFRâ??) originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive
countervailing duty on the re
gistered imports of that GFR.
GFR constitutes the main raw material used to produce
GFF.
2
Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (â??Hengshiâ??)
and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (â??Jushiâ??), two companies
formed in accordance with Egyptian laws whose shareholders are Chinese entities, produce GFF and export it to the
European Union. Jushi also produces GFR and exports it to the European Un
ion. Those two companies are
established in Egypt in the China
–
Egypt Suez Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone (â??the SETC
–
Zoneâ??), which was
created jointly by Egypt and China in accordance with their respective national strategies, namely the Suez Canal
Cor
ridor Development Plan for Egypt and the â??Belt and Roadâ?? Initiative for China. The latter initiative enables the
government authorities of China to grant certain benefits, in particular financial support, to Chinese undertakings
–
Zon
e.
Taking the view that they had been harmed by the countervailing duties imposed by the Commission, Hengshi and
Jushi brought an action before the Court for annulment of Implementing Regulation 2020/776. In a separate action,
Jushi moreover sought the ann
ulment of Implementing Regulation 2020/870.
In dismissing those actions, the Court clarified the conditions under which the Commission may attribute to the
government of the country of origin or export of a product subsidies granted by the government of an
other country
1
Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of
12
June
2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or
stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt and amending Commission Implementing Reg
ulation (EU)
2020/492
imposing definitive anti
–
dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the Peopleâ??s Republic of China
and Egypt (
OJ 2020 L
189
,
p.
1
).
2
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of
24
June
2
020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the
provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levy
ing the definitive
countervailing duty on the registe
red imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt (
OJ 2020 L
201
,
p.
10
).
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
for the purpose of imposing, under the b
asic anti
–
subsidy regulation,
3
a countervailing duty on imports of the
product concerned into the European Union.
Findings of the Court
In support of their actions, the applicants put forward, inter al
ia, a plea alleging infringement of
Article
3
(1)(a) of the
basic anti
–
subsidy regulation, according to which a subsidy is deemed to exist if there is a financial contribution by a
government in the country of origin or export. In that regard, the applicant
s dispute in particular the line of
argument followed by the Commission in the implementing regulations, consisting in attributing to the Government
–
Z
one.
First of all, the Court rejects the applicantsâ?? complaint alleging that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation
of the concept of â??governmentâ?? of the country of origin or export within the meaning of
Article
3
(1)(a) of the basic
anti
–
subsidy
regulation.
As regards that concept of â??governmentâ??, the Court notes that
Article
2
(b) of the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation is
limited to defining that concept as including the government or public bodies of the country of origin or export.
However, it is
not apparent from that provision that a financial contribution may not be attributed to the
government of the country of origin or export of the product concerned on the basis of the specific evidence
available.
Moreover, the fact that that regulation req
uires that a financial contribution be granted by the
government â??within the territory of a countryâ??
4
does not imply that that contribution must come directly from the
government of
the country of origin or export
.
Thus, the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation
does not preclude the possibility that a financial contribution granted to
companies established in Egypt by Chinese public bodies, and not directly by the Government of Egypt, may be
attributed to the latter as government of the country of origin or expor
t.
–
Zone, which enables the government
authorities of China to confer directly all the facilities inherent in the â??Belt and Roadâ?? initiative on the Chinese
undertakings established
in that zone. In those circumstances, it cannot be accepted that an economic and legal
–
Zone is not covered by the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation.
Next, the Court rejects the applicantsâ?? line of argument that th
e Commissionâ??s interpretation of
Article
3
(1)(a) of the
basic anti
–
subsidy regulation is contrary to
Article
10
(7) and
Article
13
(1) of that regulation.
In that regard, the Court notes, first, that
Article
10
(7) of the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation, which
requires the
Commission, upon receipt of a complaint, to invite the country of origin or export concerned for consultations with
the aim of clarifying the situation, does not preclude the government of that country from being consulted on the
financial con
tributions attributable to them. In the present case, it is apparent from the file that the Commission did
indeed invite the Government of Egypt for consultations on issues such as the preferential loans granted by Chinese
entities.
As regards, second,
Art
icle
13
(1) of the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation, which allows, inter alia, the country of origin or
export to eliminate or limit the subsidy or take other measures concerning its effects, such a possibility remains
valid where the financial contribution ma
y be attributed to the government of that country. Thus, it was open to the
Government of Egypt to stop the close cooperation with the Government of China in relation to the financial
contributions or to propose measures to limit the effects of the subsidi
es at issue.
It follows that neither
Article
3
(1)(a) of the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation nor the general scheme of that regulation
3
Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
8
June
2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries
not member
s of the European Union (
OJ 2016 L
176
,
p.
55
).
4
Recital
5 of the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation
.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Stay Connected
!
precludes a financial contribution granted by the Government of China from being attributed to the Government of
Egypt, as c
ountry of origin or export, in a case such as that at issue in the present case.
Lastly, contrary to what the applicants submit, that conclusion is supported inter alia by the provisions of
Article
1
of
the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measure
s,
5
in the light of which the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation
Article
1
.1(a)(1) of that agreement, which
Article
3
of the basic anti
–
subsidy regulation seeks to implement, defines a
subsidy as a financial contribution by a government or
any public body within the territory of â??aâ?? Member of the
WTO. That wording does not therefore preclude the possibility that a financial contribution granted by a third
country may be attributed to the government of the country of origin or export, since
it is sufficient that the financial
contribution of the government or any public body is within the territory of â??aâ?? Member of the WTO.
Article
3
(1)(a) of the
b
asic anti
–
subsidy regulation and rejects the plea raised by the applicants. The Court also rejects the other pleas put
NOTE:
An action for annulment seeks the ann
ulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain
conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the G
eneral Court. If the action is well
founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the
act
.
NOTE:
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against
the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision
.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text of the judgments
(
T
–
480
/20
and
T
–
540
/20
)
is
published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4
303
335
5
5
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 156), in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the Wor
ld Trade
Organisation (WTO) (OJ
1994 L 336, p. 3), signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.