Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2012 — Thomson Sales Europe

(Case C-348/11)

‛Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common commercial policy — Dumping — Importation of televisions manufactured in Thailand — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 710/95 and 2584/98’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Necessity of a question referred and relevance of the questions raised — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 41, 43)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Questions submitted in a context that precludes a useful answer — Lack of any information about the reasons that might warrant the necessity of a reply to the questions referred — Questions based on statements made by the applicant and not established — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d’instance de Paris — Validity of 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 collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1995 L 73, p. 3) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 710/95 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 1) — Regulations applying a method consistent with zeroing to determine the weighted average dumping margin — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the origin of the televisions.

Operative part

Examination of Questions 4 and 5 does not disclose any factor capable of affecting the validity of 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 collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed, or Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation No 710/95.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2012 — Thomson Sales Europe

(Case C-348/11)

‛Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common commercial policy — Dumping — Importation of televisions manufactured in Thailand — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 710/95 and 2584/98’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Necessity of a question referred and relevance of the questions raised — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 41, 43)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Questions submitted in a context that precludes a useful answer — Lack of any information about the reasons that might warrant the necessity of a reply to the questions referred — Questions based on statements made by the applicant and not established — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFUE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 92(1) and 103(1)) (see paras 48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d’instance de Paris — Validity of 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 collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1995 L 73, p. 3) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 710/95 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 1) — Regulations applying a method consistent with zeroing to determine the weighted average dumping margin — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the origin of the televisions.

Operative part

Examination of Questions 4 and 5 does not disclose any factor capable of affecting the validity of 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 collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed, or Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation No 710/95.