# C_2012118EN.01002802.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/28

---

Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Nu Air Polska v Commission

(Case T-75/12)

2012/C 118/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nu Air Polska sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8826, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8803 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8801, all three decisions being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant a partial refund of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant and unlawfully retain additional amounts of refunds of anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8826, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8803 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8801, all three decisions being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant a partial refund of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant and unlawfully retain additional amounts of refunds of anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant;

| — | Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amount and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to inform it of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in a prompt and adequate manner thereby committing violations of the rights of defence enshrined in EU general law as well as the principle of sound administration also established in EU general law and also Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to inform it of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 in a prompt and adequate manner thereby committing violations of the rights of defence enshrined in EU general law as well as the principle of sound administration also established in EU general law and also Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.

1

---