EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-81/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Beco v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0081

62012TN0081

February 15, 2012
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/30

(Case T-81/12)

2012/C 118/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Beco Metallteile-Handels GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission's decision of 13 December 2011 (Az. K(2011) 9112 final);

order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant claims that its application for a refund of anti-dumping duties, which was refused by the Commission's decision of 13 December 2011, was, contrary to the Commission's view, not lodged out of time and was therefore admissible.

The applicant states in this respect that the application was lodged within the 6-month period, in accordance with Article 11(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. (<span class="super">1</span>)

According to the wording of Article 11(8) of Regulation No 384/96, the application for a refund is subject to the condition that the duties determined have been paid by the applicant for a refund. Contrary to the view of the Commission, the 6-month period laid down in Article 11(8) of Regulation No 384/96 cannot expire before the application for a refund is admissible.

Furthermore, in accordance with the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties of 29 May 2002, (<span class="super">2</span>) applications for refunds can ‘only be submitted in respect of transactions for which anti-dumping duties have been fully paid’ (point 2.1(b)). That notice also states expressly that an importer may apply for a refund only if he ‘can demonstrate that he has paid anti-dumping duties either directly or indirectly for a specific importation’ (point 2.2(a)).

The applicant further claims that the decision of 13 December 2011 infringes the applicant's legitimate expectation based on the Commission notice of 29 May 2002 as well as the principle of good faith.

The applicant further submits that the decision of 13 December 2011 infringes the principle of legal certainty.

Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (2002/C 127/06) of 29 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 127, p. 10).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia