# C_2012065EN.01000902.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/9

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2012 by Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union

(Case C-10/12 P)

2012/C 65/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG (represented by: A. Willems, avocat, S. De Knop, advocate)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgement of the General Court of 25 October 2011 insofar as the General Court did not annul the Contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgement of the General Court of 25 October 2011 insofar as the General Court did not annul the Contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court;

| — | adopt a definitive ruling and annul the Contested Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt a definitive ruling and annul the Contested Regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court;

| — | order any intervener(s) to pay the costs of the Appeal and of the procedure before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any intervener(s) to pay the costs of the Appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court:

| — | Erred in law in holding that the Institutions’ violations of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation (1) were insufficient to annul the Contested Regulation (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in law in holding that the Institutions’ violations of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation (1) were insufficient to annul the Contested Regulation (2);

1

2

| — | Erred in law in holding that the Institutions were not required to conduct a collective analysis of the injurious effects caused by factors other than the dumped imports; |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in law in holding that the Institutions were not required to conduct a collective analysis of the injurious effects caused by factors other than the dumped imports;

| — | Erred in ordering the Appellants to pay the costs of the Council and of Euroalliages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in ordering the Appellants to pay the costs of the Council and of Euroalliages.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

1

OJ L 56, p. 1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

2

OJ L 55, p. 6

---