Case T-348/05: Action brought on 14 September 2005 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat/Council
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, fertiliser industry

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/31

Lastly, in connection with the correction in the fruit and vege-
tables sector, the applicant considers that the Commission has
misinterpreted Article 20(5)
and (7) of Regulation No
1169/1997. (7) In any event, the applicant disputes the reasons
given in the contested decision with regard to that chapter and
alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.

definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium
nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No
132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
inter alia,
imports of ammonium nitrate originating in,
Ukraine, insofar as

(1) OJ L 188 of 20.7.2005, p. 36.
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ English Special
Edition 1970(I), p. 218.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of

financing of
26.06.1999, p. 103.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of
the
the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of
accounts of
08.07.1995, p. 6.

(5) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 estab-
lishing an integrated administration and control system for certain
Community aid schemes, OJ L 355 of 05.12.1992, p. 1.

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes established
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, OJ L 327 of 12.12.2001,
p. 11.

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 of 26 June 1997 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of
certain citrus fruits, OJ L 169 of 27.06.1997, p. 15.

Action brought on 14 September 2005 — JSC Kirovo-
Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat/Council

(Case T-348/05)

(2005/C 281/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat
Applicant(s):
(Kirovo Cheptesk, Russia) [represented by: B. Servais, Y. Melin,
lawyers]

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 (1) of 21 June
2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a

— it extends

the existing anti-dumping measures

to
products other than the product under investigation in
breach of Article 1(1), Article 1(2), Article 3(2), Article
4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation; and

— it was adopted in breach of the applicant's right of
defence and procedural rights in that (i) the applicant
was not granted the hearing it had requested under
Article 6(5) of the basic Regulation and (ii) the Commis-
sion did not adequately disclose the essential facts and
intended to
consideration on the basis of which it
recommend the modification of
the
measures as required by Article 20 of the basic Regu-
lation, and that, had it not been for these breaches, the
outcome of the anti-dumping investigation might have
been different; and

the scope of

— order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a Russian company specialising in the produc-
tion of fluoroplastics, chemicals, medical products and fertili-
sers,
including ammonium nitrate. The applicant exports
ammonium nitrate and other fertilisers to the Community.

It seeks the annulment of the contested Regulation on the
grounds that it violates Articles 1(1), 1(2), 3(2), 4(1) and 5(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) in that it extends the
existing anti-dumping measures to products which are not the
product concerned.

It further contends that the contested Regulation was adopted
in breach of its right of defence and of its procedural rights in
that (i) it was not granted the hearing it had requested pursuant
to Article 6(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and (ii)
the Commission did not adequately disclose the essential facts
and consideration on the basis of which it intended to recom-
mend the modification of the scope of the measures as required
by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.

(1) OJ L 160, 23/06/2005, p. 1
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community. OJ L 56, 06/03/1996, p. 1