Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62022CN0268

Case C-268/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2022 — VITOL SA v Belgische Staat

OJ C 318, 22.8.2022, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.8.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2022 — VITOL SA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-268/22)

(2022/C 318/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VITOL SA

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Is Implementing Regulation No 1194/2013, (1) as amended by Regulation 2017/1578, (2) contrary to the basic regulation No 1225/2009, (3) inter alia because:

—

it has not been demonstrated that the conditions were met for disregarding, in the context of calculating the normal value of the like product, the costs associated with the production and sale of that product, as reflected in the records of the Argentinian exporting producers examined, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 2(5) of the basic regulation,

—

the effects of the imports were erroneously assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic regulation and it was thus not adequately demonstrated that dumped imports had caused injury within the meaning of the basic regulation, as referred to in Article 3(6) and (7) of that regulation,

—

and there was thus no question of dumping and no anti-dumping duty could be imposed as referred to in Article 1 of the basic regulation?

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1578 of 18 September 2017 amending Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2017 L 239, p. 9).

(3)  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).

Top