Case C-554/23 P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2023 by Fertilizers Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 July 2023 in Case T-126/21, Nevinnomysskiy Azot et NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission
Date: 2023-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Russia, anti-dumping duty, chemical salt, import (EU), originating product, proof








C_202300209EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/209


23.10.2023





Appeal brought on 4 September 2023 by Fertilizers Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 July 2023 in Case T-126/21, Nevinnomysskiy Azot et NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission
(Case C-554/23 P)
(C/2023/209)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Fertilizers Europe (represented by: L. Ruessmann and J. Beck, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2023 in Case T-126/21 (1) and dismiss the remainder of the claims at first instance;










—


order the Applicants before the General Court to pay the Appellant’s costs for the appeal and the intervention before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies, in support of its appeal, on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law in finding that sufficient evidence to justify initiation of an expiry review must be present in an expiry review request (ERR) submitted by the three-month deadline and not merely in the Commission's possession at the time an expiry review is initiated.
Second, the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 11(5), read in connection with Article 5(3) and Article 5(9) of the Basic Regulation, does not allow the submission of ‘new’ information with regard to ERRs after the three-month deadline.
Third, the General Court erred in law in finding that the provision by the Appellant to the Commission of additional price-based dumping calculations after the three-month deadline constitutes ‘new’ evidence and that the Commission could not rely on that information in deciding to initiate the expiry review.
Fourth, the General Court made a manifest error of assessment and distorted the facts and evidence in finding that it is not apparent from the NOI or Regulation 2020/2100 (2) that the Commission considered that the original ERR contained sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would likely result in a continuation of dumping.


(1)  EU:T:2023:376.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/209/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)