Case T-192/08: Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Transnational Company Kazchrome and ENRC Marketing v Council
Date: 2008-05-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, Egypt, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, iron, originating product

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;