Case T-680/24: Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot v Commission
Date: 2024-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, anti-dumping duty, chemical fertiliser, chemical salt, confidentiality, import (EU), organic chemical, originating product








C_202500929EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/929


17.2.2025






Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission


(Case T-680/24)

(C/2025/929)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia), AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, A. Nosowicz and D. Geraets, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible;










—


annul the notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (C/2024/5996), (1) as far as it applies to the applicants; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted contrary to Articles 291 and 297 of the TFEU and Articles 11(2), 11(6) and 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) by initiating an expiry review and by extending the validity of antidumping measures by means of the contested notice.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted contrary to Articles 5(11) and 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by failing to provide a copy of the original request and thus by initiating the review without a timely submitted expiry review request.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not receive an expiry review request containing ‘sufficient evidence’ and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 11(2), 11(5) and 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, and violated its duty to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case when it initiated the expiry review.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and acted in breach of Articles 19(1), 19(2) and 6(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by treating certain non-confidential information in the consolidated request as confidential and by denying the applicants an opportunity to inspect such non-confidential information as well as, in the alternative, by failing to ensure that non-confidential versions of the annexes concerned permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.






(1)  Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (C/2024/6842) (OJ C, C/2024/5996).

(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 2016 L 176, p. 21).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/929/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)