# C_2005281EN.01003101.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/31 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 September 2005 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat/Council

(Case T-348/05)

(2005/C 281/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo Cheptesk, Russia) [represented by: B. Servais, Y. Melin, lawyers]

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005( 1 ) of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, insofar as
—
it extends the existing anti-dumping measures to products other than the product under investigation in breach of Article 1(1), Article 1(2), Article 3(2), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation; and —
it was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of defence and procedural rights in that (i) the applicant was not granted the hearing it had requested under Article 6(5) of the basic Regulation and (ii) the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recommend the modification of the scope of the measures as required by Article 20 of the basic Regulation, and that, had it not been for these breaches, the outcome of the anti-dumping investigation might have been different; and | — | it extends the existing anti-dumping measures to products other than the product under investigation in breach of Article 1(1), Article 1(2), Article 3(2), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation; and | — | it was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of defence and procedural rights in that (i) the applicant was not granted the hearing it had requested under Article 6(5) of the basic Regulation and (ii) the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recommend the modification of the scope of the measures as required by Article 20 of the basic Regulation, and that, had it not been for these breaches, the outcome of the anti-dumping investigation might have been different; and |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | it extends the existing anti-dumping measures to products other than the product under investigation in breach of Article 1(1), Article 1(2), Article 3(2), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation; and | | | | |
| — | it was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of defence and procedural rights in that (i) the applicant was not granted the hearing it had requested under Article 6(5) of the basic Regulation and (ii) the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recommend the modification of the scope of the measures as required by Article 20 of the basic Regulation, and that, had it not been for these breaches, the outcome of the anti-dumping investigation might have been different; and | | | | |

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a Russian company specialising in the production of fluoroplastics, chemicals, medical products and fertilisers, including ammonium nitrate. The applicant exports ammonium nitrate and other fertilisers to the Community.

It seeks the annulment of the contested Regulation on the grounds that it violates Articles 1(1), 1(2), 3(2), 4(1) and 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96( 2 ) in that it extends the existing anti-dumping measures to products which are not the product concerned.

It further contends that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of its right of defence and of its procedural rights in that (i) it was not granted the hearing it had requested pursuant to Article 6(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and (ii) the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recommend the modification of the scope of the measures as required by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

---

( 1 )  OJ L 160, 23/06/2005, p. 1

( 2 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. OJ L 56, 06/03/1996, p. 1

---