# C_2011282EN.01000501.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance, Paris (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Thomson Sales Europe SA v Administration des Douanes (National Directorate for Customs Intelligence and Investigations)

(Case C-348/11)

2011/C 282/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal d’Instance, Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Administration des Douanes (National Directorate for Customs Intelligence and Investigations)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the investigation carried out by OLAF in Thailand and initiated on the basis of provisions concerning preferential origin invalid since it is contrary to international law, namely to the principle of full sovereignty and the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty of the UN General Assembly of 21 December 1965? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the investigation carried out by OLAF in Thailand and initiated on the basis of provisions concerning preferential origin invalid since it is contrary to international law, namely to the principle of full sovereignty and the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty of the UN General Assembly of 21 December 1965?

| 2. | Is the investigation carried out by OLAF in Thailand and initiated on the basis of provisions concerning preferential origin invalid where, as in the present case, OLAF did not strictly comply with Article 94 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the investigation carried out by OLAF in Thailand and initiated on the basis of provisions concerning preferential origin invalid where, as in the present case, OLAF did not strictly comply with Article 94 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code?

| 3. | Is the investigation carried out by OLAF in Thailand invalid and may the information collected during OLAF’s investigation be used to challenge the origin applicable under ordinary law when:






  — | the information was sought in the context of an investigation on preferential origin; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is the investigation carried out by OLAF in Thailand invalid and may the information collected during OLAF’s investigation be used to challenge the origin applicable under ordinary law when:

—

the information was sought in the context of an investigation on preferential origin;

| — | OLAF infringed Community legislation and in particular Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) as it did not act ‘in accordance with the cooperation agreements in force, in third countries’; |
| --- | --- |

—

OLAF infringed Community legislation and in particular Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) as it did not act ‘in accordance with the cooperation agreements in force, in third countries’;

1

| — | the competent local authority did not legally commit itself to providing assistance; |
| --- | --- |

—

the competent local authority did not legally commit itself to providing assistance;

| — | the information obtained was not communicated with the agreement of the competent local authority or in compliance with their domestic provisions applicable to the transfer of personal data to third countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

the information obtained was not communicated with the agreement of the competent local authority or in compliance with their domestic provisions applicable to the transfer of personal data to third countries;

| — | the investigation was carried out unofficially, in complete confidentiality and without observing the rights of the defence? |
| --- | --- |

—

the investigation was carried out unofficially, in complete confidentiality and without observing the rights of the defence?

| 4. | Are Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand (2) and amending Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998 (3) invalid because the application of zeroing in determining the weighted average dumping margin was referred to neither in their preambles nor in the preamble to the previous regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2376/94 of 27 September 1994 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand (4)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand (2) and amending Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998 (3) invalid because the application of zeroing in determining the weighted average dumping margin was referred to neither in their preambles nor in the preamble to the previous regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2376/94 of 27 September 1994 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand (4)?

2

3

4

| 5. | Are Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and amending Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998 invalid in so far as the Council of the European Union applied, for the purposes of determining the dumping margin for the product covered by the investigation, the zeroing method to the negative dumping margins for each type of product concerned? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and amending Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998 invalid in so far as the Council of the European Union applied, for the purposes of determining the dumping margin for the product covered by the investigation, the zeroing method to the negative dumping margins for each type of product concerned?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ 1995 L 73, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ 1998 L 324, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ 1994 L 255, p. 50.

4

---