Case T-234/08: Action brought on 10 June 2008 — EuroChem MCC v Council
Date: 2008-06-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Russia, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, chemical fertiliser, import, originating product

C 209/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Luxembourg v
Commission

is an actual financial risk such as to give rise to the application
of a flat rate correction.

(Case T-232/08)

(2008/C 209/104)

Language of the case: French

Finally, the applicant submits that the non-application of sanc-
tions where there is an over-declaration by the beneficiaries
could not constitute the basis for a flat rate correction of 5 %,
since the actual level of irregular expenditure can be determined
exactly. Moreover, according to the applicant the amount of irre-
gular expenditure is extremely low in relation to the total
amount paid by the Community.

Parties

(1) Notified under document number C(2008) 1283, OJ 2008 L 109,

p. 35.

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: F.
Probst, acting as Agent and M. Theisen, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Action brought on 10 June 2008 — EuroChem MCC v
Council

— annul decision C(2008) 1283 of the Commission of the
European Communities of 8 April 2008 excluding from
Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so
far as is excludes from Community financing for the finan-
cial years 2004-2005 the expenditure of paying agencies in
the amount of EUR 949 971,51 on the ground that it does
not comply with Community rules;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

seeks

the Guarantee Section of

The applicant
the annulment of Commission Deci-
sion 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under
the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European
Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (1) in so far as is excludes
certain expenditure incurred by Luxembourg for
the years
2004-2005.

As regards the planning of on-the-spot checks of recipients, the
applicant submits that the Commission wrongly complained
that it had carried out the majority of the checks in the same
period of the year instead of spreading them over the whole
year and without taking into account the optimal period for
checking certain commitments.

In addition, the applicant claims that the on-the-spot checks
carried out effectively related to the entirety of the recipient's
commitments and obligations
the
commitment period, contrary to what the Commission claimed
in the pre-litigation stage before the conciliation body.

from the beginning of

Concerning the documentation of the on-the-spot checks, the
applicant takes the view that the mere fact that the control
reports are not sufficiently detailed, as claimed by the Commis-
sion in the pre-litigation stage, does not mean ipso facto that
the controls were not carried out and does not prove that there

(Case T-234/08)

(2008/C 209/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO
(EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, 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 238/2008 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 solutions of urea and ammo-
nium nitrate originating in Russia, insofar as it imposes an
anti-dumping duty on the applicant, its manufacturing subsi-
diaries and related companies, indicated in paragraph 10 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 applicant
and its manufacturing subsidiaries and 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.

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.