Case T-41/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2008 — Vakakis v Commission (Community tendering procedure — Interim proceedings — Loss of an opportunity — Locus standi — Admissibility of the main application — Urgency — Measures of inquiry)
Date: 2008-04-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, invitation to tender, rural development, services contract, technical cooperation

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/25

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
25 April 2008 — Vakakis v Commission

Form of order sought

(Case T-41/08 R)

— Annul the contested regulation in so far as it affects the

(Community tendering procedure — Interim proceedings —
Loss of an opportunity — Locus standi — Admissibility of
the main application — Urgency — Measures of inquiry)

(2008/C 197/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vakakis
International — Symvouli gia Agrotiki
Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O'Connor, Soli-
citor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)

Re:

Application for an order granting interim measures in the
context of the service tender procedure EuropeAid/125241/C/
SER/CY for the supply of ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural
Development Policy’ in the Northern Part of Cyprus.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The application for measures of inquiry or organisation of procedure

is dismissed.

3. There is no need for a decision on the application for leave to inter-

vene.

4. Costs are reserved, except that Agriconsulting shall bear the costs
incurred by it in connection with the submission of its application
for leave to intervene.

Action brought on 14 May 2008 — CHEMK and
Kuznetskie ferrosplavy v Council and Commission

(Case T-190/08)

(2008/C 197/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chelyabinsk elektrometallurgical
integrated plant
OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia) and Kuznetskie ferrosplavy
OAO (Novokuznetsk, Russia)
(represented by: P. Vander
Schueren, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

applicants;

— order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants

in relation to these proceedings; or

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

applicants in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

forward five grounds

The applicants put
in support of
their application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 172/2008 (1) of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional
duty imposed on imports of
ferro-silicon originating in the
People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugo-
slav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (‘the contested regu-
lation’) in so far as it affects the applicants. In the alternative,
the applicants seek annulment of
the Commission decision
dated 28 February 2008, notified to them on 3 March 2008, by
which the Commission rejected their request for a suspension of
that were introduced by the
the anti-dumping measures
contested regulation (‘the contested decision’).

First, the applicants claim that the Council acted contrary to
Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation (2) (‘the Basic Regulation’)
and failed to fulfil the obligation to provide an adequate state-
ment of reasons when it refused to use the actual profit margin
of the applicants' related importer for the construction of their
export price.

Second, the applicants submit that the Council
infringed the
principle of non-discrimination as well as Articles 6(7), 8(4)
and 20(1) of the Basic Regulation by granting advanced disclo-
sure to the Macedonian producer SILMAK.

Third, the applicants contend that the Council acted contrary to
Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation by committing an error of
law and a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the
Community industry suffered material injury.

Fourth, the applicants claim that the contested regulation is
contrary to Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation and is
vitiated by an error of law, multiple manifest errors of assess-
ment, the lack of due care and inadequate reasoning inasmuch
as the Council allegedly disregarded the effect of other factors
on the situation of the Community industry that break the link
between the targeted imports and the alleged material injury to
the Community industry.

Fifth, the applicants submit that the Council violated their rights
of defence by refusing to provide data on the complaint that
justified the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation.