Belgian state and banque indosuez and others
5 Pages
English
Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more

Belgian state and banque indosuez and others

-

Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more
5 Pages
English

Description

Belgian State and Banque Indosuez and Others COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES JUDGMENT OF THE COURT C-177/96 (1997) Author’s Note: A trial court of first instance was a national court in Belgium. It refereed this case to the EC court, seeking guidance on the continuing applicability of a 1988 decision by a Belgian court that had imposed anti-dumping duties on a steel exporter in what is now the independent nation of Macedonia. The Court of Justice review of that national court decision demonstrates an actual application of anti-dumping measures, and that such taxes can be adjusted. The European Community was concerned about the effect of dumping from outside of the EU. This case involves an intriguing argument regarding Yugoslavia’s change in State status [see §3.3 Revision of Judgment Case]. The corporate entity in Macedonia claimed that Yugoslavia’s splintering into new and smaller States precluded the continuation of sanctions against the Macedonian exporter. The court’s following response relies generally upon Chapter 4 principles regarding the individual/corporation in International Law–and specifically on the responsibility of corporations in this common international business context. Court’s Opinion: . . . 1. . . . [T]he Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg (Court of First Instance), Antwerp, referred to the Court . . . under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of [the] Commission Decision . . .

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 117
Language English

Exrait

1
Belgian State and Banque Indosuez and Others
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT C-177/96 (1997)
<http://curia.eu.int/en/content/juris/index.htm>
Author’s Note
: A trial court of first instance was a national court in Belgium. It refereed
this case to the EC court, seeking guidance on the continuing applicability of a 1988
decision by a Belgian court that had imposed anti-dumping duties on a steel exporter in
what is now the independent nation of Macedonia. The Court of Justice review of that
national court decision demonstrates an actual application of anti-dumping measures, and
that such taxes can be adjusted.
The European Community was concerned about the effect of dumping from
outside of the EU. This case involves an intriguing argument regarding Yugoslavia’s
change in State status [see §3.3
Revision of Judgment
Case]. The corporate entity in
Macedonia claimed that Yugoslavia’s splintering into new and smaller States precluded
the continuation of sanctions against the Macedonian exporter. The court’s following
response relies generally upon Chapter 4 principles regarding the individual/corporation
in International Law–and specifically on the responsibility of corporations in this
common international business context.
Court’s Opinion
:
. . .
1. . . . [T]he Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg (Court of First Instance), Antwerp,
referred to the Court . . . under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the
interpretation of [the] Commission Decision . . . of 18 July 1988 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports of certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in
Yugoslavia and . . . [Belgium’s] collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on
those imports.
2. Those questions were raised in proceedings between, on the one hand, the
Banque Indosuez (hereinafter ‘Indosuez’), a company incorporated under Swiss law,
Stahlhandel Schmitz GmbH (hereinafter ‘Schmitz’), a company incorporated under
German law, and Rijn-en Kanaalvaart Expeditie SA, a company incorporated under
Belgian law (hereinafter ‘Rijn-en Kanaalvaart Expeditie’) and, on the other, the Belgian
State concerning anti-dumping duties collected by that State pursuant to [the above]
Decision No 2131/88, in respect of imports into the Community of certain steel products
originating in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (hereinafter ‘the FYROM’).
3. Schmitz imported the products at issue into the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic
Union between 1 May 1992 and 31 July 1992. According to the documents before the
Court, the products came from Rudnici i Zelezarnica Skopje (hereinafter ‘Rudnici’), a
company established in Skopje (FYROM).
4. Decision No 2131/88 [in 1988] . . . concerned protection against dumped or
subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel
Community. . . .
5. . . . [T]he anti-dumping arrangements . . . were adopted in accordance with
existing international obligations, in particular those arising from Article VI of the