CELEX: 62006TN0115
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-115/06: Action brought on  7 April 2006  — Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council

17.6.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 143/32
            
         Action brought on 7 April 2006 — Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening and Others v Council
   (Case T-115/06)
   (2006/C 143/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Fiskeri og Havbruksnæringens Landsforening (Oslo, Norway), Norske Sjømatbedrifters Landsforening (Trondheim, Norway), Salmar Farming AS (Frøya, Norway), Hydroteck AS (Kristiansund, Norway), Hallvard Lerøy AS (Bergen, Norway), Lerøy Midnor AS (Hestvika, Norway) (represented by: B. Servais and T.S. Paulsen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties for imports of salmon originating in Norway; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are Norwegian salmon producers, farmers and exporters or representing such undertakings, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (1) (‘contested regulation’) as they find that the regulation violates several articles of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (‘basic regulation’).
   The Commission services had in the course of the procedure leading to the contested regulation agreed to change the form of measures from duties to minimum import prices. This was confirmed by the contested regulation.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the sample of Norwegian producers/exporters, which is restricted to exporting producers and does not comprise non-exporting farmers and non-producing exporters, wasn't representative of the structure of the Norwegian salmon industry and was inconsistent with previous decisions on samples of the Norwegian salmon market.
   Furthermore, the applicants allege that the defendant failed to apply the lesser duty rule contained in Article 9(4) of the basic regulation. According to the applicants, the weighted average dumping margin was less than the weighted average injury margin, and the minimum import price and the fixed duty should therefore have been established on the basis of the weighted average dumping margin and not on the basis of the weighted average injury margin. As for the calculation of the non-dumped minimum import price, the applicants further allege that the use, for the conversion from NOK into EUR, of a three-year average exchange rate instead of the average exchange rate for the period of investigation artificially increased the non-dumped minimum import price.
   Moreover, the applicants claim that the minimum import price for salmon fillets wasn't based on representative data and that it was determined in breach of Articles 3(5) and 20 of the basic regulation and in violation of the principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations and the rights of defence.
   Finally, the applicants submit that the assessment of injury and the causes hereto is flawed. Firstly, in the injury analysis the defendant relied on the total of the imports as ‘dumped imports’ notwithstanding the fact that one company was found not to be dumping. Secondly, the apparent price decrease of the average sales prices in the Community industry was caused by the conversion of GBP into EUR, all sampled Community producers being based in the UK, and not by the imports. Thirdly, the defendant failed to examine properly the impact that rising costs of production in the Community may have had on the situation of the Community industry.
   
      (1)  OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.