CELEX: C1999/226/54
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-104/99: Action brought on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja, Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie, Alpex-Karlino S.A. at Karlino and Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie against the Council of the European Union

C 226/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
In addition, the applicant considers that the contested decision        The applicants submit that the contested regulation:
is based on reasoning which is irrelevant and erroneous.
                                                                        — infringes essential procedural requirements laid down in
                                                                            Articles 1(1), 1(2) and 5(4) of the Basic Regulation, Article
                                                                            VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1 and 4.1 of the
                                                                            WTOAD, and in so doing makes a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment of the facts and the law by imposing an
                                                                            anti-dumping duty when it had not correctly and properly
                                                                            determined the product under investigation, and as a result
                                                                            had failed to ensure that the investigation leading to
Action brought on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja,                            the contested regulation was supported by a sufficiently
Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie,                          representative proportion of the Community industry
Alpex-Karlino S.A. at Karlino and Zaklady Plyt                              producing the like product. More specifically, the appli-
Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie against the Council of the                     cants state in this respect that hardboard in itself is a too
                        European Union                                      narrow a definition of ’like products’, within the meaning
                                                                            of Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation. As a result, the
                                                                            Community industry producing the like product was
                        (Case T-104/99)                                     incorrectly defined, so that the complainants were not
                                                                            sufficiently representative of Community production of
                                                                            the like product as to constitute a majority of the
                        (1999/C 226/54)                                     industry. The complainants therefore failed to satisfy the
                                                                            requirements of Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
                                                                            Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, Article VI of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                     the GATT 1994, and Articles 1 and 3(1) of the WTOAD,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  and makes a manifest error of assessment in finding that
Communities on 28 April 1999 by AS Bolderaja, Zaklady Plyt                  the Community industry producing the like product under
Pilsniowych S.A. at Krosno Orzanskie, Alpex-Karlino S.A. at                 investigation suffered injury. According to the applicants,
Karlino and Zaklady Plyt Pilsniowych w Czarnej Wodzie,                      the investigation of injury conducted by the Commission
represented by Mr. Vassilios N. Akritidis and Mr Tom Pick,                  concerned only a very small number of complaints, and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                considered hardboard performance only, thus eliminating
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.                                 from consideration the excellent performances of the thin
                                                                            MDF sector. The Council was not therefore in possession
                                                                            of adequate and reliable indicators from which to draw
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                 any reliable conclusion on injury.
— declare, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
    that the definitive regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No          — infringes an essential procedural requirement under
    194/99) is null and void;                                               Articles 1(1), 3(ó), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation,
                                                                            Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 3.5, 3.6 and
— order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings               3.7 of the WTOAD, and makes a manifest error of
    be borne by the defendant.                                              assessment in finding that imports of hardboard were the
                                                                            cause of injury to the Community industry producing the
                                                                            like product.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Finally, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
The applicants in the presents case, private limited companies          is vitiated by infringement of a fundamental procedural
incorporated under the laws of Latvia and Poland respectively,          requirement under Articles 29 and 33(3)(b) of the EU/Latvia
challenge Council Regulation (EC) No 194/99 of 25 January               Europe Agreement, in that it was adopted without due
1999, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of             consultation being offered to the Government of Latvia.
hardboard originating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the provisional
duties imposed (1).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 22, 29.11.1999, p. 16.
Hardboard, the product at issue, is a wood-based panel
product. It forms part of a wider family of several wood-based
panel products which all bear similarities between one another.
Such products are, for example, Medium Density Fibreboard
(MDF), High Density Fibreboard (HDF), chipboard, plywood,
softwood, etc.