This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0256
Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed)
Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed)
Case C-256/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Anti-dumping — Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid — Obligation to implement — Legal basis — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 14 — Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States — Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities — Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid — Article 10 — Non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Article 221 — Time-bar — Article 236 — Repayment of duties not owed)
OJ C 166, 14.5.2018, pp. 5–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.5.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 166/5 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
(Case C-256/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Anti-dumping - Validity of a regulation seeking to implement a judgment of the Court declaring previous regulations invalid - Obligation to implement - Legal basis - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 14 - Setting of the criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties by Member States - Direction suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national customs authorities - Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid - Article 10 - Non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Article 221 - Time-bar - Article 236 - Repayment of duties not owed))
(2018/C 166/06)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Deichmann SE
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg
Operative part of the judgment
Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.