# C_2015073EN.01001301.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

(Case C-571/14)

(2015/C 073/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Timberland Europe BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it relates to [C], established in Vietnam, and [F], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’) were infringed, given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by the aforementioned exporting producers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it relates to [C], established in Vietnam, and [F], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’) were infringed, given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by the aforementioned exporting producers?

| 2. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to the producers referred to in question 1 because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to the producers referred to in question 1 because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

| 3. | Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to [A], part of [B], established in Vietnam, and [D], part of [E], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to [A], part of [B], established in Vietnam, and [D], part of [E], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

---