Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62021TN0126

    Case T-126/21: Action brought on 26 February 2021 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

    OJ C 148, 26.4.2021, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    26/02/2021
    Date lodged:
    26/02/2021
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    26.4.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 148/24

    Action brought on 26 February 2021 — Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission

    (Case T-126/21)

    (2021/C 148/34)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot (Nevinnomyssk, Russia) and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (Novomoskovsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020, (1) as far as it applies to the applicants;

    —

    order the defendant to to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not receive an expiry review request containing ‘sufficient evidence’ and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 11(2), 11(5) and 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, (2) and violated its duty to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case when it initiated the expiry review.

    (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21).

    (2)  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 (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

    Top