13.3.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/13

—

(Case C-725/22 P)

(2023/C 94/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocate, A. de Moncuit and T. Martin-Brieu, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America (1) in part relating to the first, second, third and fourth parts of the first plea as well as to the first and fourth parts of the fourth plea put forward by the appellants in their action before the General Court, given that the state of the proceedings so permits;

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on five pleas in law.

First, alleging that the General Court erred in its interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘the Basic Regulation’).

Second, alleging that the General Court incorrectly declared the alleged infringement of Article 2(3) to (5) of the Basic Regulation by the Commission inadmissible, exceeded power of judicial review, failed to address the appellants’ claim and erred in interpretation of Articles 2(10) and/or 2(10)(k) of the Basic Regulation.

Third, alleging that the General Court committed a legal error in interpretation of Articles 5(1), 5(3), 5(6), 5(9) and 7(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation.

Fourth, alleging that the General Court did not address or distorted the evidence by finding that the complaint demonstrated the existence of dual pricing in Russia.

Fifth, alleging that the General Court distorted the clear meaning of the submitted evidence and violated its duty to state reasons by finding that subsidized natural gas purchases in Trinidad and Tobago do not amount to a dual pricing scheme within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of the Basic Regulation and erred in its interpretation.

(1)

OJ 2019 L 258, p. 21.

(2)

OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21.

—