Case C-644/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 17 November 2017 — Eurobolt BV
Date: 2017-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-dumping legislation, decision (EU), import (EU), infringement of EU law, legality, originating product, right to justice, third country








C_2018052EN.01001801.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 17 November 2017 — Eurobolt BV
(Case C-644/17)
(2018/C 052/25)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eurobolt BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred









1








(a)


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as meaning that an applicant may challenge the legality of a decision of an institution of the Union which must be implemented by national authorities, by pleading infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the Treaties or misuse of powers?










(b)


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as meaning that the institutions of the Union which are involved in the adoption of a decision whose validity is challenged in proceedings before a national court are bound to provide that court, if requested to do so, with all the information at their disposal and which was taken into account, or should have been taken into account, by them in the adoption of that decision?










(c)


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the right to an effective remedy requires the court to conduct a robust review of whether the conditions for the application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) have been satisfied? In particular, does that Article 47 mean that that court is competent to fully assess whether the facts have been fully and adequately established so as to justify the legal effect relied upon? In particular, does that Article 47 also mean that that court is competent to fully assess whether facts which were allegedly not taken into account in the adoption of the decision, but which could be detrimental to the legal effect associated with the facts which were established, should have been taken into account?
















2








(a)


Must the term ‘relevant information’ in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 be interpreted as including the response of an independent importer of the goods forming the subject of the investigation referred to in that provision, established in the European Union, to the findings of the Commission, if that importer was notified of that investigation by the Commission, provided requested information to the Commission and, having been given the opportunity to do so, responded in a timely fashion to the Commission’s findings?










(b)


If question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, can that importer then plead infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 if the response submitted by him was not made available at least ten working days prior to the meeting of the Advisory Committee provided for in that provision?










(c)


If question 2(b) is answered in the affirmative, does that infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 mean that that decision is unlawful and that it should not be implemented?










(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).