This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/179/32
Case T-174/04: Action brought on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., against the Council of the European Union
Case T-174/04: Action brought on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., against the Council of the European Union
Case T-174/04: Action brought on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., against the Council of the European Union
IO C 179, 10.7.2004, p. 16–17
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.7.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 179/16 |
Action brought on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-174/04)
(2004/C 179/32)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 May 2004 by Petrotub S.A., Roman, Romania, represented by Mr A.L. Merckx, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 235/2004 of 10 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Romania in so far as it concerns imports into the European Community of products manufactured by Petrotub S.A. and Republica S.A (1). |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The contested regulation was adopted by the Council in an effort to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 9 January 2003 in case C-76/00 P. This judgment set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98 Petrotub and Republica v. Council (2) and annulled Council Regulation (EC) No. 2320/1997 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel in so far as it concerned Petrotub S.A. and Republica S.A.
In support of its application the applicant submits that the Council has exceeded its discretionary power under Article 233 EC by implementing the judgment in a way that infringes Articles 6 paragraphs 1 and 9 and 2 paragraph 11 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3). More particularly, the applicant contends that Article 6 paragraph 9 was infringed since the contested regulation was adopted on the basis of the initial investigation even though more than 15 months had elapsed since its initiation. Further, Article 6 paragraph 1 was infringed in that the anti-dumping measures adopted were no longer based on information relating to a period of at least six months immediately prior to the initiation of proceedings. The applicant also contends that the contested regulation does not contain adequate motivation as to why the first two methods of calculation of the dumping margin, provided for in Article 2 paragraph 11 of Regulation No 384/96, were rejected in favour of the third method. On this basis the applicant claims that the contested regulation also infringed Article 2 paragraph 11 of Regulation No 384/1996 as well as Article 253 EC.
(1) OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 12.
(2) [1999] ECR-II 3837.