CELEX: 62013CN0569
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

18.1.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 15/10
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
   (Case C-569/13)
   2014/C 15/14
   Language of the case: Swedish
   
      Referring court
   
   Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Bricmate AB
   
      Defendant: Tullverket
   
      Questions referred
   
   Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) invalid on any one of the following grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact,
            
         
               2.
            
            
               that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment,
            
         
               3.
            
            
               that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51),
            
         
               4.
            
            
               that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence,
            
         
               5.
            
            
               that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or
            
         
               6.
            
            
               that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 238, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.