# C_2015311EN.01003301.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/33

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2015 in Case T-169/12: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-345/15 P)

(2015/C 311/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK), Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

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 Judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the Judgment of the General Court;

| — | Give a final judgment on the matter where the stage of the procedure so permits; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give a final judgment on the matter where the stage of the procedure so permits;

| — | In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| — | Order the interveners to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the interveners to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of the appellants’ pleas in law in its judgment as follows:

| — | In their first plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in its legal appraisal when it rejected the plea at first instance that Article 11(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation and its reference to Article 2 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation require the institutions to calculate a dumping margin in all interim reviews of dumping, thereby also infringing the legal principles of good administration, transparency and legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

In their first plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in its legal appraisal when it rejected the plea at first instance that Article 11(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation and its reference to Article 2 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation require the institutions to calculate a dumping margin in all interim reviews of dumping, thereby also infringing the legal principles of good administration, transparency and legal certainty;

1

| — | In their second plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the reasoning of the General Court in its judgment in Case T-143/06 MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

In their second plea in law on appeal, the appellants contend that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the reasoning of the General Court in its judgment in Case T-143/06 MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L 343, p. 51.

1

---