FrancophonIA/DGT-Translation_Memory huggingface dataset:
English: Case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [2000] ECR I-08147.
French: Affaire C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Conseil, Rec. 2000, p. I-8147.
German: Rechtssache C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Rat, Slg. 2000, I-08147.
Spanish: Asunto C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) contra Consejo (Rec. 2000, p. I-8147).
Italian: Causa C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Consiglio, Racc. 2000, pag. I-08147.
Portuguese: Processo C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Conselho, Coletânea da Jurisprudência 2000, página I-8147.
Dutch: Zaak C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Raad, Jurispr. 2000, blz. I-08147.
Danish: Sag C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) mod Rådet, Sml. 2000 I, s. 8147.
Swedish: Mål C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) mot rådet, REG 2000, s. I-8147.
Finnish: Asia C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v. neuvosto, Kok.[2000], s. I-08147.
Greek: Υπόθεση C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) κατά Συμβουλίου [2000] Συλλογή I-08147.
Czech: Věc C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v. Rada, Sb. rozh. 2000, s. I-08147.
Slovak: Vec C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Rada, Zb. 2000, s. I-8147.
Polish: Sprawa C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) przeciwko Radzie, Rec. 2000, s. I-08147.
Hungarian: A C-458/98 P. sz. Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) kontra Tanács ügy, EBHT 2000., I-08147. o.
Slovenian: Zadeva C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) proti Svetu, Recueil 2000, str. I-08147.
Romanian: Cauza C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Consiliu, Rep., 2000, p. I-8147.
Bulgarian: Решение от 3 октомври 2000 г. по дело C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS)/Съвет, Recueil, стр. I-08147.
Estonian: Kohtuasi C-458/98 P: Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) vs. nõukogu, EKL 2000, lk I-8147.
Latvian: Lieta C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) / Padome (2000), Recueil I-8147. lpp.
Lithuanian: Byla C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) prieš Tarybą, [2000] Rink., p. I-8147.
Maltese: Il-Kawża C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v il-Kunsill [2000] ECR I-08147.
English: OJ C 63, 2.3.2012, p. 10.
French: JO C 63 du 2.3.2012, p. 10.
German: ABl. C 63 vom 2.3.2012, S. 10.
Spanish: DO C 63 de 2.3.2012, p. 10.
Italian: GU C 63 del 2.3.2012, pag. 10.
Portuguese: JO C 63 de 2.3.2012, p. 10.
Dutch: PB C 63 van 2.3.2012, blz. 10.
Danish: EUT C 63 af 2.3.2012, s. 10.
Swedish: EUT C 63, 2.3.2012, s. 10.
Finnish: EUVL C 63, 2.3.2012, s. 10.
Greek: ΕΕ C 63 της 2.3.2012, σ. 10.
Czech: Úř. věst. C 63, 2.3.2012, s. 10.
Slovak: Ú. v. EÚ C 63, 2.3.2012, s. 10.
Polish: Dz.U. C 63 z 2.3.2012, s. 10.
Hungarian: HL C 63., 2012.3.2., 10. o.
Slovenian: UL C 63, 2.3.2012, str. 10.
Romanian: JO C 63, 2.3.2012, p. 10.
Bulgarian: ОВ C 63, 2.3.2012 г., стр. 10.
Estonian: ELT C 63, 2.3.2012, lk 10.
Latvian: OV C 63, 2.3.2012., 10. lpp.
Lithuanian: OL C 63, 2012 3 2, p. 10.
Maltese: ĠU C 63, 2.3.2012, p. 10.
English: OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
French: JO L 209 du 2.8.1988, p. 1.
German: ABl. L 209 vom 2.8.1988, S. 1.
Spanish: DO L 209 de 2.8.1988, p. 1.
Italian: GU L 209 del 2.8.1988, pag. 1.
Portuguese: JO L 209 de 2.8.1988, p. 1.
Dutch: PB L 209 van 2.8.1988, blz. 1.
Danish: EFT L 209 af 2.8.1988, s. 1.
Swedish: EGT L 209, 2.8.1988, s. 1.
Finnish: EYVL L 209, 2.8.1988, s. 1.
Greek: ΕΕ L 209 της 2.8.1988, σ. 1.
Czech: Úř. věst. L 209, 2.8.1988, s. 1.
Slovak: Ú. v. ES L 209, 2.8.1988, s. 1.
Polish: Dz.U. L 209 z 2.8.1988, s. 1.
Hungarian: HL L 209., 1988.8.2., 1. o.
Slovenian: UL L 209, 2.8.1988, str. 1.
Romanian: JO L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
Bulgarian: ОВ L 209, 2.8.1988 г., стр. 1.
Estonian: EÜT L 209, 2.8.1988, lk 1.
Latvian: OV L 209, 2.8.1988., 1. lpp.
Lithuanian: OL L 209, 1988 8 2, p. 1.
Maltese: ĠU L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
English: OJ L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 1.
French: JO L 242 du 15.9.2010, p. 1.
German: ABl. L 242 vom 15.9.2010, S. 1.
Spanish: DO L 242 de 15.9.2010, p. 1.
Italian: GU L 242 del 15.9.2010, pag. 1.
Portuguese: JO L 242 de 15.9.2010, p. 1.
Dutch: PB L 242 van 15.9.2010, blz. 1.
Danish: EUT L 242 af 15.9.2010, s. 1.
Swedish: EUT L 242, 15.9.2010, s. 1.
Finnish: EUVL L 242, 15.9.2010, s. 1.
Greek: ΕΕ L 242 της 15.9.2010, σ. 1.
Czech: Úř. věst. L 242, 15.9.2010, s. 1.
Slovak: Ú. v. EÚ L 242, 15.9.2010, s. 1.
Polish: Dz.U. L 242 z 15.9.2010, s. 1.
Hungarian: HL L 242., 2010.9.15., 1. o.
Slovenian: UL L 242, 15.9.2010, str. 1.
Romanian: JO L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 1.
Bulgarian: ОВ L 242, 15.9.2010 г., стр. 1.
Estonian: ELT L 242, 15.9.2010, lk 1.
Latvian: OV L 242, 15.9.2010., 1. lpp.
Lithuanian: OL L 242, 2010 9 15, p. 1.
Maltese: ĠU L 242, 15.9.2010, p. 1.
English: Joined Cases T-163/94 and 165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v Council [1995] ECR II-01381.
French: Affaires jointes T-163/94 et T-165/94, NTN Corporation et Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Conseil, Rec. 1995, p. II-1381.
German: Verbundene Rechtssachen T-163/94 und 165/94 NTN, Corporation und Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Rat, Slg. 1995, II-01381.
Spanish: Asuntos acumulados T-163/94 y 165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd contra Consejo de la Unión Europea (Rec. 1995, p. II-01381).
Italian: Cause riunite T-163/94 e 165/94, NTN Corporation e Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Consiglio, Racc. 1995, pag. II-01381.
Portuguese: Processos apensos T-163/94 e 165/94, NTN Corporation e Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Conselho, Coletânea da Jurisprudência 1995, página II-1381.
Dutch: Gevoegde zaken T-163/94 en T-165/94, NTN Corporation en Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Raad, Jurispr. 1995, blz. II-01381.
Danish: Forenede sager T-163/94 og 165/94, (NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd mod Rådet, Sml. 1995 II, s. 1381.
Swedish: Förenade målen T-163/94 och T-165/94 NTN Corporation och Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd mot rådet, REG 1995, s. II-1381.
Finnish: Yhdistetyt asiat T-163/94 ja 165/94, NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v. neuvosto, Kok.[1995], s. II-01381.
Greek: Συνεκδικασθείσες υποθέσεις T-163/94 και 165/94 NTN Corporation και Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd κατά Συμβουλίου [1995] Συλλογή II-01381.
Czech: Spojené věci T-163/94 a T-165/94, NTN Corporation a Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v. Rada, Sb. rozh. 1995, s. II-01381.
Slovak: Spojené veci T-163/94 a T-165/94, NTN Corporation a Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Rada, Zb. 1995, s. II-01381.
Polish: Sprawy połączone T-163/94 i 165/94, NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd przeciwko Radzie, Rec. 1995, s. II-01381.
Hungarian: A T-163/94. sz. és a T-165/94. sz. egyesített ügyek; NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd kontra Tanács, EBHT (1995) II-01381. o.
Slovenian: Združene zadeve T-163/94 in T-165/94, NTN Corporation in Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd proti Svetu, Recueil 1995, str. II-01381.
Romanian: Cauzele comune T-163/94 și 165/94, NTN Corporation și Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Consiliu, Rep., 1995, p. II-1381.
Bulgarian: Решение от 2 май 1995 г. по съединени дела T-163/94 и Т-165/94, NTN Corporation и Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd/Съвет, Recueil, стр. II-01381.
Estonian: Liidetud kohtuasjad T-163/94 ja T-165/94: NTN Corporation ja Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd vs. Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu, EKL 1995, lk II-01381.
Latvian: Apvienotās lietas T-163/94 un T-165/94 NTN Corporation un Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd / Padome (1995), Recueil II-1381. lpp.
Lithuanian: Sujungtos bylos T-163/94 ir 165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd prieš Tarybą, [1995] Rink., p. II-1381.
Maltese: Kawżi Konġunti T-163/94 u 165/94 NTN Corporation u Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v il-Kunsill [1995] ECR II-01381.
English: OJ C 120, 25.4.2012, p. 9.
French: JO C 120 du 25.4.2012, p. 9.
German: ABl. C 120 vom 25.4.2012, S. 9.
Spanish: DO C 120 de 25.4.2012, p. 9.
Italian: GU C 120 del 25.4.2012, pag. 9.
Portuguese: JO C 120 de 25.4.2012, p. 9.
Dutch: PB C 120 van 25.4.2012, blz. 9.
Danish: EUT C 120 af 25.4.2012, s. 9.
Swedish: EUT C 120, 25.4.2012, s. 9.
Finnish: EUVL C 120, 25.4.2012, s. 9.
Greek: ΕΕ C 120 της 25.4.2012, σ. 9.
Czech: Úř. věst. C 120, 25.4.2012, s. 9.
Slovak: Ú. v. EÚ C 120, 25.4.2012, s. 9.
Polish: Dz.U. C 120 z 25.4.2012, s. 9.
Hungarian: HL C 120., 2012.4.25., 9. o.
Slovenian: UL C 120, 25.4.2012, str. 9.
Romanian: JO C 120, 25.4.2012, p. 9.
Bulgarian: ОВ C 120, 25.4.2012 г., стр. 9.
Estonian: ELT C 120, 25.4.2012, lk 9.
Latvian: OV C 120, 25.4.2012., 9. lpp.
Lithuanian: OL C 120, 2012 4 25, p. 9.
Maltese: ĠU C 120, 25.4.2012, p. 9.
English: According to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the General Court judgment of 8 November 2011. It is established case-law (Case T-2/95 [4], ‘the IPS case’) that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding. The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. Moreover, according to the Court’s case-law, in order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure and to implement it fully, the institution which took the measure should resume the procedure at the very point at which the illegality occurred and replace that measure [5]. Finally, the implementation of a court ruling also implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the General Court judgment, as was held in Case C-458/98 P [6]. It should be noted that apart from the finding of an infringement of Article 20(5) and of Article 8 of the basic Regulation, all other findings made in the contested Regulation remain automatically valid to the extent that the General Court dismissed all arguments made in this respect.
Danish: I henhold til artikel 266 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde (»TEUF«) er EU-institutionerne forpligtet til at efterkomme Rettens dom af 8. november 2011. Det fremgår af retspraksis (sag T-2/95 [4], »IPS-sagen«), at i tilfælde, hvor en procedure omfatter flere administrative faser, indebærer annullering af en af disse faser ikke annullering af hele proceduren. Antidumpingproceduren er et eksempel på en sådan procedure, som omfatter flere faser. Følgelig indebærer annulleringen af den anfægtede forordning, for så vidt angår en af parterne, ikke annullering af hele den procedure, der gik forud for vedtagelsen af nævnte forordning. I henhold til Rettens praksis bør den institution, der iværksatte foranstaltningen, desuden genoptage proceduren på det præcise tidspunkt, hvor ulovligheden indtraf, og erstatte foranstaltningen, for at efterkomme den dom, der annullerer en foranstaltning, og opfylde den fuldt ud [5]. Endelig indebærer gennemførelsen af Rettens dom også, at der er mulighed for at afhjælpe de aspekter af den anfægtede forordning, som førte til dens annullering, og lade de dele, som ikke anfægtes, og som ikke berøres af Rettens dom, forblive uændrede — som det blev fastslået i sag C-458/98 [6]. Det bemærkes, at bortset fra konklusionen vedrørende overtrædelse af grundforordningens artikel 20, stk. 5, og artikel 8 forbliver alle andre konklusioner i den anfægtede forordning automatisk gyldige, for så vidt at Retten afviste alle anbringender, der blev fremsat i den forbindelse.
English: As regards Harmonic’s allegation concerning the breach of its right to offer price undertakings, it should be noted that Harmonic’s argument is twofold. First, Harmonic alleges that it is not legally, practically or realistically possible for the Commission to retroactively backdate a price undertaking for a period of almost five years.
Swedish: När det gäller Harmonics påstående om åsidosättandet av dess rätt att erbjuda åtaganden, bör det noteras att Harmonics invändningar är av två slag: Harmonic hävdar för det första att det inte är rättsligt, praktiskt eller realistiskt möjligt för kommissionen att ge retroaktiv verkan åt ett prisåtagande under en period av närmare fem år.
Greek: Όσον αφορά τον ισχυρισμό της Harmonic σχετικά με την παραβίαση του δικαιώματός της να προτείνει ανάληψη υποχρεώσεων ως προς την τιμή, θα πρέπει να επισημανθεί ότι το επιχείρημα της Harmonic είναι διττό:
English: It is established case-law (Case T-2/95 [4], ‘the IPS case’) that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding. The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. Moreover, according to the Court’s case-law, in order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure and to implement it fully, the institution which took the measure should resume the procedure at the very point at which the illegality occurred and replace that measure [5]. Finally, the implementation of a court ruling also implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the General Court judgment, as was held in Case C-458/98 P [6]. It should be noted that apart from the finding of an infringement of Article 20(5) and of Article 8 of the basic Regulation, all other findings made in the contested Regulation remain automatically valid to the extent that the General Court dismissed all arguments made in this respect.
Finnish: Vakiintuneen oikeuskäytännön mukaan (asia T-2/95 [4], jäljempänä ’IPS-tuomio’) tapauksissa, joissa menettely koostuu useista hallinnollisista vaiheista, yhden vaiheen kumoaminen ei johda koko menettelyn mitätöimiseen. Polkumyynnin vastainen menettely on tällainen monivaiheinen menettely. Näin ollen riidanalaisen asetuksen kumoaminen yhden osapuolen osalta ei tarkoita sitä, että koko tuon asetuksen antamista edeltävä menettely olisi mitätön. Jotta voidaan noudattaa toimen kumoavaa tuomiota ja panna se täytäntöön kokonaisuudessaan, olisi toimen toteuttaneen toimielimen tuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännön mukaan aloitettava menettely uudelleen juuri siitä ajankohdasta, jolloin lainvastaisuus ilmeni, ja korvattava kyseinen toimi. [5] Tuomioistuimen tuomion täytäntöönpano tarkoittaa myös, että on mahdollista korjata ne riidanalaisen asetuksen näkökohdat, jotka johtivat sen kumoamiseen, mutta jättää ennalleen sen kiistattomat osat, joihin unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio ei vaikuta, kuten asiassa C-458/98 P [6], jäljempänä ’valituksenalainen IPS-tuomio’, on katsottu. Olisi huomattava, että perusasetuksen 20 artiklan 5 kohdan ja 8 artiklan rikkomista koskevaa päätelmää lukuun ottamatta kaikki muut riidanalaisen asetuksen päätelmät pysyvät ilman eri toimenpiteitä voimassa, koska yleinen tuomioistuin hylkäsi kaikki väitteet tältä osin.
English: Harmonic submits that its right to offer price undertakings within the prescribed period cannot be corrected by procedurally reopening the original investigation. In addition, Harmonic alleges that recital 68 of the contested Regulation apparently included the assessment of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic.
Italian: Harmonic sostiene che il suo diritto di offrire impegni sui prezzi entro il termine fissato non possa essere ripristinato con la riapertura procedurale dell’inchiesta iniziale e che il considerando 68 del regolamento controverso comprenda la valutazione di un impegno formale sui prezzi proposto da Harmonic.
English: It is recalled that Article 9 of the basic Regulation does not concern deadlines for conducting anti-dumping investigations. It concerns general issues related to terminations without measures and the imposition of definitive duties.
Italian: Si ricorda che l’articolo 9 del regolamento di base non riguarda i termini per la conclusione di inchieste antidumping bensì questioni generali relative a conclusioni senza misure e l’istituzione di dazi definitivi.
English: It is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was that the Commission had sent its proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty to the Council before the end of the 10-day mandatory deadline for receiving comments following the sending to interested parties of a definitive disclosure document, as provided for in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission had also infringed Article 8 of the basic Regulation, which conferred on Harmonic the right to offer undertakings up to the expiry of that period.
Portuguese: Recorde-se que o regulamento impugnado foi anulado porque a Comissão tinha enviado a sua proposta de instituição de um direito anti-dumping definitivo ao Conselho da União Europeia antes do fim do prazo obrigatório de 10 dias para a receção das observações, previsto pelo artigo 20.o, n.o 5, do regulamento de base, após o envio às partes interessadas do documento de divulgação final, e porque a Comissão violou, também, o artigo 8.o do regulamento de base, que confere à empresa Harmonic o direito de oferecer compromissos até ao termo desse período.
English: As regards Harmonic’s allegation concerning the breach of its right to offer price undertakings, it should be noted that Harmonic’s argument is twofold. First, Harmonic alleges that it is not legally, practically or realistically possible for the Commission to retroactively backdate a price undertaking for a period of almost five years. Second, Harmonic claims that on the one hand, recital 68 of the contested Regulation includes the assessment of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic, whilst on the other hand, the Commission sustains that any price undertakings that could have been submitted by Harmonic would have been rejected anyway, because they would be impractical to monitor.
Portuguese: No que se refere à alegação da empresa Harmonic relacionada com a violação do seu direito de oferta de compromissos de preços, é de notar que o argumento da Harmonic é duplo: em primeiro lugar, a Harmonic alega que não é possível à Comissão, em termos práticos, jurídicos ou realistas, fazer retroagir um compromisso de preços durante um período de quase cinco anos; em segundo lugar, alega que, por um lado, o considerando 68 do regulamento impugnado incluiria aparentemente a avaliação formal de um compromisso de preços oferecido pela empresa e que, por outro, a Comissão argumentaria que os compromissos de preços que poderiam ter sido apresentados pela Harmonic teriam sido rejeitados, de qualquer modo, dado que não seria exequível controlá-los.