# C_2011030EN.01002301.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Roubaix (France) lodged on 17 November 2010 — CIVAD SA v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes

(Case C-533/10)

()

2011/C 30/38

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal d'instance de Roubaix

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CIVAD SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the unlawfulness of a Community regulation, which cannot in fact or in law be challenged by a trader by means of an individual action to have it annulled, amount for that trader to a case of force majeure which permits the time-limit provided for in the second sub-paragraph of Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code to be exceeded (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the unlawfulness of a Community regulation, which cannot in fact or in law be challenged by a trader by means of an individual action to have it annulled, amount for that trader to a case of force majeure which permits the time-limit provided for in the second sub-paragraph of Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code to be exceeded (1)?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, do the provisions of the third sub-paragraph of Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code require the customs authorities to repay anti-dumping duties of their own initiative when the unlawfulness of those duties has been found following a challenge to their lawfulness by a Member State of the World Trade Organisation (‘the W.T.O.’):






  1. | from the time of the first communication of the country concerned contesting the lawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, do the provisions of the third sub-paragraph of Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code require the customs authorities to repay anti-dumping duties of their own initiative when the unlawfulness of those duties has been found following a challenge to their lawfulness by a Member State of the World Trade Organisation (‘the W.T.O.’):

1.

from the time of the first communication of the country concerned contesting the lawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation;

| 2. | from the time of the panel report finding the unlawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

from the time of the panel report finding the unlawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation;

| 3. | from the time of the report of the Appellate Body of the W.T.O. which led the European Community to recognise the unlawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

from the time of the report of the Appellate Body of the W.T.O. which led the European Community to recognise the unlawfulness of the anti-dumping regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

1

---