- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-644/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — proceedings brought by Eurobolt BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Right to an effective remedy — Extent of review by national courts of an act of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 15(2) — Communication to the Member States, no later than 10 working days before the meeting of the Advisory Committee, of all relevant information — Concept of ‘relevant information’ — Essential procedural requirement — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia — Validity)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0644
62017CA0644
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 305/6
(Case C-644/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Right to an effective remedy - Extent of review by national courts of an act of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 15(2) - Communication to the Member States, no later than 10 working days before the meeting of the Advisory Committee, of all relevant information - Concept of ‘relevant information’ - Essential procedural requirement - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia - Validity)
(2019/C 305/07)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Intervener: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to contest the validity of a piece of secondary EU legislation, an individual may rely before a national court or tribunal on complaints that could be put forward in the context of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, including complaints alleging a failure to satisfy the conditions for adopting such a piece of legislation.
2.Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal is entitled, prior to bringing proceedings before the Court of Justice, to approach the EU institutions that have taken part in drawing up a piece of secondary EU legislation, the validity of which is being contested before that court or tribunal, in order to obtain specific information and evidence from those institutions which it considers essential in order to dispel all doubts which it may have as regards the validity of the EU act concerned and so that it may avoid referring a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of assessing the validity of that act.
3.Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, is invalid, inasmuch as it was adopted in breach of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.