This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0569
Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
IO C 15, 18.1.2014, p. 10–10
(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:
- 06/11/2013
- Date lodged:
- 06/11/2013
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Sualainnis
- Type of procedure:
- Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- request for interpretation 32011R0917
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
18.1.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 15/10 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
(Case C-569/13)
2014/C 15/14
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Bricmate AB
Defendant: Tullverket
Questions referred
Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) invalid on any one of the following grounds:
|
1. |
that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact, |
|
2. |
that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment, |
|
3. |
that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51), |
|
4. |
that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence, |
|
5. |
that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or |
|
6. |
that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)? |
(1) OJ L 238, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 343, p. 51.
