Case T-235/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
Date: 2008-06-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, chemical fertiliser, import, originating product

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/59

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Acron and Dorogobuzh
v Council

The applicant, a Russian producer and exporter of solutions of
urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment, pursuant to
Article 230 EC, of Council Regulation (EC) No 38/2008 (1) (‘the
contested regulation’).

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward one
main ground for annulment, subdivided in three limbs. The
the Community institutions wrongly
applicant submits that
established the normal value for the applicant, leading to its arti-
ficial increase; carried out a wrong comparison with the export
price and hence reached an erroneous finding of dumping,
thereby breaching Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Regulation (2),
while committing a series of manifest errors of assessment and
violating fundamental principles of Community law. These
breaches directly led, according to the applicant, to the unwar-
ranted termination of the interim review without amendment of
the anti-dumping measure with respect to the applicant.

More specifically, the applicant claims, on the basis of its first
plea, that the Community institutions erred in law and violated
Article 2(3) and (5) of the Basic Regulation, by disregarding a
major part of the applicant's costs of production as being unreli-
able and/or by de facto applying a non-market economy metho-
dology for establishing the major part of the applicant's normal
value.

On the basis of its second plea, the applicant claims that the
Commission, once having decided to proceed with the gas
adjustment, violated Article 2(5), second sentence, of the Basic
Regulation and/or made a manifest error of appreciation. More-
over, the applicant argues that the Commission showed lack of
reasoning by implementing the gas adjustment on the basis of
the intra-community price of gas at Waidhaus Germany and by
failing to deduct from the amount of adjustment the 30 %
Russian export duty on Russian gas.

On the basis of its third plea, the applicant contends that the
Community institutions violated Article 2(10) of the Basic Regu-
lation and made a manifest error of assessment of the facts by
deducting from the applicant's export price the first independent
customer
selling, general and administrative expenses and
commission in respect of related companies, which are general
parts of the applicant's single economic entity and integrated
sales department.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 238/2008 of 10 March 2008 termi-
nating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of solu-
and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia
tions of urea
(OJ 2008 L 75, p. 14).

(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).

(Case T-235/08)

(2008/C 209/106)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russia) and Dorogo-
buzh OAO (Verkhnedneprovsky, Russia)
(represented by: P.
Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March
2008 terminating the partial
interim review pursuant to
Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-
dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating
in Russia, insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the
applicants and their related companies, as defined in para-
graph 11 of the contested regulation;

— Order the competent institutions, in light of the gravity of
breaches of Community law found, to discontinue the impo-
sition of the anti-dumping duty with respect to the appli-
cants and their related companies, until the Community
institutions have adopted the measures necessary to comply
with the Court's judgment;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of and occasioned by

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, Russian producers and exporters of ammonium
nitrate, seek the annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of
Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 (‘the contested regu-
lation’) (1).

In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
single ground for annulment, divided into two pleas. The appli-
cants submit that the Community institutions wrongly estab-
lished the normal value for the applicants, leading to its artificial
increase; hence reached an erroneous finding of dumping,
thereby breaching Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Regulation (2),
committing a series of manifest errors of assessment and
violating fundamental principles of Community law. These
breaches directly led, according to the applicants, to the unwar-
ranted termination of the partial interim review without amend-
ment of the anti-dumping measure with respect to the appli-
cants.

C 209/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

More specifically, the applicants claim, on the basis of their first
plea, that the Community institutions erred in law and violated
Article 2(3) and (5) of the Basic Regulation, by disregarding a
major part of the applicants' costs of production as being unreli-
able and/or by de facto applying a non-market economy metho-
dology for establishing the major part of the applicants normal
value.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that once having decided to
proceed with the gas adjustment,
the Commission violated
Article 2(5), second sentence and/or made manifest error of
appreciation and showed a lack of reasoning, by implementing
the gas adjustment on the basis of the intra-Community price of
gas at Waidhaus Germany and failing to deduct
from the
amount of adjustment the 30 % Russian export duty on Russian
gas.

The applicants submit that had the dumping margin been deter-
mined correctly, in accordance with the Basic Regulation and
fundamental principles of Community law,
the Community
institutions would have found absence of or de minimis
dumping, and the anti-dumping measures could have been
repealed or significantly amended with respect to the applicants
and their related companies.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 termi-
nating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of
ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, 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).

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

relating to the policies and administration of

By the present action the applicant seeks the annulment of the
Commission's Decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting its tender
submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the
conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of docu-
ments
the
European Union from all EU official languages into English (call
for tender No FL-GEN07-EN) (1). The reason given for not
retaining the applicant's tender was insufficient
technical or
professional capacity and lack of, or insufficient proven profes-
sional experience.

In support of its action the applicant puts forward a single plea
in law.
It claims that the administrative procedure has been
conducted irregularly and that its procedural rights have not
been observed. The applicant submits that it has successfully
provided translation into English within the Commission for
several years in the framework of contracts previously signed
and regularly renewed for which it has received satisfactory
rankings regarding the quality of the services. The applicant
claims that the evaluation committee's decision took no or no
proper account of the successful performance of the applicant
in submitting translation assignments to the Commission for
12 years neither it
took into consideration the documents
evidencing the technical and professional qualifications of the
applicant's staff, quality managers and sub-contractors.

(1) Contract notice published : OJ 2007/S 180 — 219517.

Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Comtec Translations v
Commission

(Case T-239/08)

(2008/C 209/107)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Procter & Gamble v
OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

(Case T-240/08)

(2008/C 209/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Comtec Translations Ltd (Leamington Spa, United
Kingdom) (represented by: L. R. Scott and E. Bentley, Solicitors)

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United
States) (represented by: N. Beckett and T. Scourfield, Solicitors)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

— Annul the decision letter and remit the applicant's bid for

reconsideration;

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Labora-
torios Alcala Farma SL (Alcala de Henares, Spain).