Case T-190/08: Action brought on 14 May 2008 — CHEMK and Kuznetskie ferrosplavy v Council and Commission
Date: 2008-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, Egypt, European Commission, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, iron

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.

C 197/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

In the alternative, the applicants put forward one ground of
annulment of the contested decision, namely that the Commis-
sion committed an error of law, a manifest error of assessment
and violated the principle of equal treatment and sound admin-
istration by rejecting the applicants' request for the suspension
of the measures.

(1) OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6.
(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 21 May 2008 — Transnational
Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council

(Case T-192/08)

(2008/C 197/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants:
Kazchrome)
(Kloten, Switzerland)
Willems, lawyers)

Transnational
(TNK
(Aktobe, Kazakhstan) and ENRC Marketing AG
(represented by: L. Ruessmann and A.

‘Kazchrome’

Company

manifest errors of fact and breaches of the Basic Regulation (2)
(‘the Basic Regulation’) as well as of the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement. The applicants further argue that
the defendant
failed to state reasons as required by Article 253 EC.

On the basis of the first plea, the applicants submit that the
Council failed to properly distinguish between effects caused by
other known factors from any injury caused by the targeted
imports and, thus, the Council's findings violate Articles 3(2),
3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation.

On the basis of their second plea, the applicants advance that
the anti-dumping duty was adopted on the basis of an erro-
neous assessment of Community interest and in violation of
Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation.

On the basis of their third plea, it is submitted that although the
applicants provided verifiable information to the institutions,
they were allegedly treated as non-cooperating,
the Council
failed to check the facts used against available information
which was brought to their attention and failed to carry out a
proper market economy treatment within the time-limits
imposed by the Basic Regulation.

On the basis of the fourth plea, the applicants contend that
their rights of defence have been violated in the course of the
investigation.

(1) OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6.
(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).

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— To declare the application admissible;

— to annul Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 imposing a
ferro-silicon
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt,
Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Russia as far as it applies to the applicants;

— order the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred

by the applicants.

Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Carina Skareby against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06, Skareby v Commission

(Case T-193/08 P)

(2008/C 197/47)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicants, who produce and sell ferro-silicon to the market
of the European Union, seek partial annulment of Council Regu-
lation (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
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that they
are directly and individually concerned by the contested regu-
lation and that the anti-dumping duty imposed by the said regu-
lation is the result of several manifest errors of assessment,

Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S.
Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment delivered on 6 March 2008 by the
European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-46/06;