Case T-111/04: Actionbrought on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk AluminiumPlant against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of Europe, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, semi-metal

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/87

— in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appli-

cant's complaint of 11 July 2003;

— order the defendant to pay damages and compensation for
the material and non-material damage suffered by the appli-
cant ex aequo et bono of up to EUR 2 500;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is challenging the validity of
his progress report (rapport d'évolution de carrière (REC)) in
respect of the reference period running form 1 July 2001 to 31
December 2002.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Article 43 of

its
general implementing provisions and the Guide to Assess-
ment;

the Staff Regulations,

— breach of the duty to provide reasons and the existence, in
the present case, of a manifest error of assessment and
misuse of powers;

— failure to observe the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials and breach of the principle of sound administra-
tion;

— breach of the rights of defence and failure to observe the
time-limits laid down in the relevant provisions of the Staff
Regulations.

Action brought on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk Alumi-
nium Plant against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-111/04)

(2004/C 106/171)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk Aluminium
Plant, Bratsk, Russia, represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos,
lawyer and Mr J. Branton,Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 of 22
December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on

imports of silicon originating in Russia, published on 24
December 2003 in the Official
Journal of the European
Union, OJ L 339, 24/12/2003, p. 3, insofar as it relates to
the applicant

— Order that all the costs occasioned by these proceedings be

borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

contested measure, Council Regulation

(EC) No.
The
2229/2003 (1),
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of silicon originating in Russia and as part of that
imposed a 22.7 % duty on silicon originating in Russia. The
applicant, a Russian company producing silicon, requests the
annulment of this application.

In support of its application the applicant contends that the
Council violated article 2 paragraphs 8 and 9 of Regulation
384/1996 (2), committed a manifest error of assessment and
breached a fundamental procedural requirement by failing to
accept that the applicant and its trader in the British Virgin
Islands are related. The applicant further contends that it was
denied its right to a fair hearing since the Council failed to
conduct an additional verification visit in respect to that allega-
the Council also violated
tion. According to the applicant
Article 18 paragraph 4 of
regulation 384/1996 when it
rejected evidence supplied by the applicant. The applicant also
invokes a violation of article 20 paragraph 4 of Regulation
384/1996 consisting in the Council's failure to provide a
proper statement of the essential facts and considerations on
the basis of which it was proposed to impose definitive
measures. The applicant finally submits that the contested regu-
lation mistakenly considered the applicant's domestic sales as
unprofitable and inflated the assessment of dumping, by
rejecting the applicant's electricity costs and adjusting them
upwards by reference to irrelevant factors. On this basis the
applicant contends
the contested regulation violated
Article 2 paragraphs 5 and 7 (b and c) of Regulation
384/1996, committed a manifest error of assessment and failed
to state proper reasons.

that

(1) Official Journal L 339 , 24/12/2003 P. 3-13.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community, Official Journal L 056 , 06/03/1996 P.
1-20.