- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-84/07: Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical Company EuroChem v Council
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0084
62007TN0084
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.5.2007
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 117/26
Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’v Council
(Case T-84/07)
(2007/C 117/40)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Open Joint Stock Company Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’(Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
—Annul the contested regulation, and in particular Article 1 thereof, insofar as it concerns the applicant and its related companies specified in recital 14(a) and (b) of the contested regulation; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who is a Russian producer and exporter of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Community institutions established the normal value for the applicant wrongly and made a wrong comparison with the export price and hence made an erroneous finding of dumping. The Community institutions thereby committed a series of manifest errors of assessment and violated fundamental principles of Community law.
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Community institutions violated Article 11(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation (2) by failing to carry out an interim review in conjunction with the expiry review under Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and by adopting the contested regulation extending the duties at their original level, whilst having had the duty and the possibility to initiate an interim review either ex-officio or pursuant to sufficient evidence provided by the applicant.
(1) OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26.
(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).
* * *