Transnational Company 'Kazchrome' AO and ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union (T-192/08)

Judgment of 25 Oct 2011

law://eu/cjeu/2008/t-192-08/para_212@2026-11-15

212That conclusion cannot be called in question by the arguments raised by the applicants in connection with the first part of the first plea. First, as regards the argument based on the comments of other parties to the anti-dumping proceeding, made during the investigation procedure, this must be rejected as inadmissible, since essentially the applicants do not put forward any arguments, but simply refer to those comments, which they annex to the application. Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — applicable to the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute and Article 44(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — all applications must indicate the subject-matter of the proceedings and the form of order sought by the applicant, and include a brief statement of the grounds relied on. The information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the General Court to decide the case. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, for the essential facts and points of law on which the action is based to be apparent from the text of the application itself, even if only stated briefly, provided that the statement is coherent and comprehensible (Case T-195/95 Guérin automobiles v Commission [1997] ECR II-679, paragraph 20, and Case T-19/01 Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission [2005] ECR II-315, paragraph 64). Whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law, which must appear in the application (order in Case T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1703, paragraph 49).

Transnational Company 'Kazchrome' AO and ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union (T-192/08)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections