Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 28 February 2008 - TNC Kazchrome and ENRC Marketing v Council and Commission

(Case T-107/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Joint stock company 'Transnational Company Kazchrome' (TNC Kazchrome) (Actobe, Kazakhstan), ENRC Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the contested regulation to the extent it imposes anti-dumping measures on imports of SiMn that is produced and/or sold by the applicants;

order the Council and Commission jointly and severally to pay the applicants damages including interest for harm, that resulted from the wrongful initiation of the case, errors of facts, and erroneous assessment, including the Commission's violations of fundamental principles of Community law, and the wrongful adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007;

order the Commission and Council to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicants;

order the Commission to bear its own costs and jointly and severally to bear those incurred by the applicants insofar as they are not covered by the Council.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are respectively producers and exporters of silico-manganese to the European Union, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 of 4 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silico-manganese originating in the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan and terminating the proceedings on imports of silico-manganese originating in Ukraine¹.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the defendants committed manifest errors of assessment, breached the Basic Regulation² and failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC by including Kazakhstan and excluding India from the anti-dumping investigation; by rejecting the applicants' claim that they operate as a single economic entity; when determining the applicants' export price; when assessing whether and to what extend the imports of silico-manganese from Kazakhstan caused injury to the Community industry; by cumulating the imports from Kazakhstan with the imports from China for the purposes of this assessment and when assessing the Community interest.

The applicants furthermore submit that the Community institutions breached their right to be heard and the principles of good administration, protection of the applicants legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and proportionality as, among others, the applicants were not given access to information that was relevant to the findings of the Community institutions and as the undertaking offered by the applicants was rejected.

____________

¹ - OJ 2007 L 317, p. 5.

² - Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).