# C_2014061EN.01000701.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/7

---

Appeal brought on 16 January 2014 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 November 2013 in Case T-512/09: Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council of the European Union

(Case C-21/14 P)

2014/C 61/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 5 November 2013, notified to the Commission on 6 November 2013, in Case T-512/09 Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 5 November 2013, notified to the Commission on 6 November 2013, in Case T-512/09 Rusal Armenal ZAO v Council;

| — | reject the first plea of the Application at first instance as unfounded in law; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the first plea of the Application at first instance as unfounded in law;

| — | refer the case for the remaining pleas to the General Court for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case for the remaining pleas to the General Court for reconsideration;

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

| | First, the General Court has ruled ultra petita. |
| --- | --- |

First, the General Court has ruled ultra petita.

ultra petita

| | Second, the General Court has misinterpreted Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), in the version applicable when the contested Regulation was adopted, and the intention of the Community legislator, in the sense of the Nakajima case-law (2), when adopting that provision. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the General Court has misinterpreted Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), in the version applicable when the contested Regulation was adopted, and the intention of the Community legislator, in the sense of the Nakajima case-law (2), when adopting that provision.

1

2

| | Third, the General Court has violated the general principle of Community law of institutional balance. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the General Court has violated the general principle of Community law of institutional balance.

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

1

(2)  Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraphs 28 to 32; restated in Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, paragraph 49; see also Case C-76/00 P Petrotub and Republica v Council [2003] ECR I-79, paragraphs 53 to 56.

2

---