Case T-45/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-01-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2019122EN.01002001.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/20






Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
(Case T-45/19)
(2019/C 122/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russia), Dorogobuzh OAO (Dorogobuzh, Russia), Acron Switzerland AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and A. Nys, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1703 of 12 November 2018; (1) and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs;





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty and it failed to provide sufficient motivation by finding that the Russian Federation was not complying with its World Trade Organisation obligations.
The applicants submit that the defendant would have failed to take into account the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation as relevant to the change in the calculation of the dumping margin of the applicants. The defendant would be under the obligation to take into account the commitments made by the Russian Federation regarding the price of gas when investigating the interim review of the duties applicable to the import of ammonium nitrate. Since the defendant would have argued that the Russian Federation would not have been complying with its own Protocol of Accession, the defendant would have acted in breach of Article VI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article II of World Trade Organisation Antidumping Agreement. In failing to do so, it would have breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and failed to provide sufficient motivation, resulting in the breach of the rights of defence of the applicants by finding that the change of circumstances invoked by the applicants was not of a lasting nature.






—


The applicants submit that, within the scope of the second plea, there would be two separate grounds for annulment of the contested decision. Both grounds relate to the erroneous conclusion that the change of circumstances was not of lasting nature.










—


In any case, the defendant would have breached its obligation of motivation under Article 296 TFEU by failing to motivate the contested decision in a clear and unequivocal fashion.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 19(2) and 20(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) as well as the applicants’ rights of defence and provided for a lack of legal certainty by failing to provide its dumping calculation.






—


The defendant would have failed to disclose the final calculation of the dumping margin to the applicants, even though that calculation served as the basis for the findings relating to the continuation and existence of dumping, the lasting nature of the change of circumstances, and also the termination of the partial interim review. If the defendant would have communicated the calculation, it would have allowed the applicants to defend their rights more effectively with regard to the dumping calculation and the findings of dumping as a whole, including the argument relating to the calculation methodology used in the original investigation, which could have had a significant impact on their legal situation.










—


The applicants submit that the defendant would have infringed Article 19(2) and Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036, the applicants’ rights of defence and the principle of legal certainty by failing to provide the applicants with a meaningful summary of the evidence collected during the investigation or the considerations on the basis of which the defendant proposed to amend the applicants’ anti-dumping margin. The applicants submit that by refusing to provide them with its dumping margin calculation, the defendant would have infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and would have breached the principle of legal certainty.










(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1703 of 12 November 2018 terminating the partial interim review concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 285, 13.11.2018, p. 97).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).