Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/23

—

(Case C-215/13 P)

2013/C 171/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, avocats, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union;

—Give a final judgment of the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellants;

—Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellants at both instances;

—Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellants incurred in connection with its intervention(s).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court:

—Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation (‘ADA’);

—Uphold an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA;

—Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA

* OJ L 75, p. 1

—