Action brought on 26 September 2012 - VTZ and Others v Council
(Case T-432/12)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
Annul, as far as the applicants are concerned, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 of 26 June 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia (OJ 2012 L 174, p. 5); and
Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that by cumulating imports from Russia with imports from Ukraine, the Council manifestly erred in the appraisal of the facts, violated Article 3(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the "Basic Regulation") and infringed the principle of equal treatment.
Second plea in law, alleging that by concluding that the repeal of the measures is likely to lead to injury recurring the Council infringed the principle of equal treatment and manifestly erred in the appraisal of facts and, therefore, infringed Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation.
Third plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation and the principle of equal treatment by committing a manifest error of assessment as concerns the analysis of the Union interest.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed the principle of sound administration and the applicants' rights of defence by failing to examine the arguments raised by the applicants during the investigation and to provide the applicants with the disclosure of essential facts and considerations concerning the case, the duty to state reasons and the principle of sound administration and the rights of defence of the applicants by providing the Member States with information on the case prior to receiving any comments from the applicants and by consulting the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee before the applicants had been heard.
____________1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L343, p. 51), as amended.