Case T-296/06: Action brought on 19 October 2006 — Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery v Council
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, export price, import, office supplies, originating product, overheads

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/25

In particular,

In its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission
failed to have regard,
in its assessment of the justified and
appropriate nature of the remedies proposed by the IBPT, to
the principles and objectives of the New Regulatory Framework
for electronic communications.
the applicant
claims that the fact that the Commission postulated the applica-
tion of symmetrical termination charges is a manifest infringe-
ment of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimina-
tion in that the Commission failed to have sufficient regard to
the applicant's position and the objective differences that
pertained between it and the other mobile operators. Further-
more, the applicant submits that the tariff rules approved by
the Commission constitute a misuse of powers and infringe
Article 2 of Directive 2002/77/EC. (2)

(1) Directive 2002/21/EC of

the
Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for
electronic communications networks and services
(Framework
Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on
competition in the markets for electronic communications networks
and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).

Action brought on 19 October 2006 — Dongguan Nanzha
Leco Stationery v Council

(Case T-296/06)

(2006/C 310/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dongguan Nanzha Leco Stationery Mfg. Co., Ltd
(Dongguan City, China) (represented by: A. P. Bentley, QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1136/2006 in so far as

it applies to the applicant; and

— order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

of lever arch mechanisms originating in the People's Republic
of China (1), in so far as the regulation affects the applicant.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation (2) in that the
Community institutions determined the applicant's export price
at a level ex factory in China which did not include sales,
general and administrative expenses, whereas the normal value
did include such expenses.

The applicant further invokes an infringement of the principles
of good administration and diligent investigation in that the
Community institutions failed to verify data relating to the
sales, general and administrative expenses of the sales company
through which the applicant sells its products in order to deter-
mine whether the applicant's export price should be deter-
mined at the price level of this sales company instead of at the
price level of the applicant's factory in China.

Finally, the applicant invokes an infringement of Article 2(7) of
the Basic Regulation and the principles of good administration
and objectivity in that the Community institutions changed
their methodology for determining the normal value without
any apparent objective justification.

(1) OJ 2006 L 205, 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 1996 L 56, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 October 2006 — Majątek Hutniczy
v Commission

(Case T-297/06)

(2006/C 310/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland)
(represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare this action admissible;

lever arch
The applicant, who is a Chinese producer of
mechanisms, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1136/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports

— annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission Decision of 5
July 2005 concerning the aid granted by Poland to Huta
Częstochowa S.A.
(notified under document number C
(2005) 1962);