# C_2020061EN.01005302.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/53

---

Action brought on 18 December 2019 – Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

(Case T-865/19)

(2020/C 61/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia), AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: E. Gergondet, and P. Vander Schueren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul the Contested Regulation, as far as it applies to the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Contested Regulation, as far as it applies to the applicants; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their application, the applicants request the Court to annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 (1).

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 2(1), 2(9) and 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (the ‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by incorrectly determining the export price and the normal value and acted in breach of Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) of the basic Regulation by making its ordinary course of trade determination based on adjusted costs of production. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 2(1), 2(9) and 2(10) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (the ‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by incorrectly determining the export price and the normal value and acted in breach of Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 2(5) of the basic Regulation by making its ordinary course of trade determination based on adjusted costs of production.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of non-discrimination as a result of its improper analysis of the effect of dumped imports on prices in the Union market for like products. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of non-discrimination as a result of its improper analysis of the effect of dumped imports on prices in the Union market for like products.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(7) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment and violated the right to sound administration by failing to assess other known factors causing injury to the Union industry and by failing to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(7) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment and violated the right to sound administration by failing to assess other known factors causing injury to the Union industry and by failing to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 7(2a), 9(4), 9(5), 18(1), 18(4) and 18(5) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination when it decided not to apply the lesser duty rule to imports of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 7(2a), 9(4), 9(5), 18(1), 18(4) and 18(5) of the basic Regulation, committed manifest errors of assessment, violated the right to sound administration and violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination when it decided not to apply the lesser duty rule to imports of the applicants.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

---