EUR-Lex El acceso al Derecho de la Unión Europea
Este documento es un extracto de la web EUR-Lex
Documento 62019TN0045
Case T-45/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
Case T-45/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
Case T-45/19: Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
OJ C 122, 1.4.2019, p. 20/21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
1.4.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 122/20 |
Action brought on 24 January 2019 — Acron and Others v Commission
(Case T-45/19)
(2019/C 122/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russia), Dorogobuzh OAO (Dorogobuzh, Russia), Acron Switzerland AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and A. Nys, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1703 of 12 November 2018; (1) and |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs; |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty and it failed to provide sufficient motivation by finding that the Russian Federation was not complying with its World Trade Organisation obligations. The applicants submit that the defendant would have failed to take into account the Russian Federation’s accession to the World Trade Organisation as relevant to the change in the calculation of the dumping margin of the applicants. The defendant would be under the obligation to take into account the commitments made by the Russian Federation regarding the price of gas when investigating the interim review of the duties applicable to the import of ammonium nitrate. Since the defendant would have argued that the Russian Federation would not have been complying with its own Protocol of Accession, the defendant would have acted in breach of Article VI of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Article II of World Trade Organisation Antidumping Agreement. In failing to do so, it would have breached its international obligations, which amounts to a breach of the Treaty. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and failed to provide sufficient motivation, resulting in the breach of the rights of defence of the applicants by finding that the change of circumstances invoked by the applicants was not of a lasting nature.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 19(2) and 20(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) as well as the applicants’ rights of defence and provided for a lack of legal certainty by failing to provide its dumping calculation.
|
(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1703 of 12 November 2018 terminating the partial interim review concerning imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 285, 13.11.2018, p. 97).
(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 L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).