natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derudover kan Kommissionen beslutte at foretage kontrolbesøg på stedet.
The Commission recognises, however, that not all importers that bought footwear from those traders may have been aware of the need to inform the Commission of the names of the exporting producers from which those traders acquired their footwear.
Kontrolbesøg på stedet er dog ikke påkrævet, og de foretages heller ikke ved hver ansøgning om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling.
In order to ensure full respect of their rights of defence, the Commission therefore has decided to specifically contact the importers in question and make them aware of the situation and their burden of proof.
Når kontrolbesøg på stedet gennemføres, har de normalt til formål at bekræfte en vis foreløbig vurdering foretaget af institutionerne og/eller at kontrollere rigtigheden af oplysningerne fra den pågældende eksporterende producent.
In order to provide for the time necessary to implement this decision, the examination of the companies listed in Annex III is temporarily suspended until the Commission has contacted the relevant importers and given them time to react.
Med andre ord vil et kontrolbesøg på stedet normalt ikke foretages, hvis den dokumentation, der var fremsendt af den eksporterende producent, tydeligt viser, at der ikke er belæg for at indrømme markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling.
The deadline of eight months for assessing MET/IT claims will start on the day the importer informs the Commission of the names and addresses of the exporting producers concerned, or, where no reply is received within the time period determined by the Commission, from the date of expiry of that time period.
Det er op til Kommissionen at vurdere, om det er nødvendigt med et kontrolbesøg.
Suspension of ongoing implementation exercise
Retten til at beslutte hvordan oplysningerne i en anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling skal verificeres ligger hos denne institution.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued also that in the interest of legal certainty, the Commission should not adopt and publish any further legal acts regarding the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, until the Court of Justice rules on an ongoing preliminary rulings on the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 referred to in recital (23) and the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 referred to in recital (19) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 referred to in (20).
Så når Kommissionen i den nuværende sag beslutter — på grundlag af en skrivebordsanalyse — at den havde tilstrækkelige beviser til at træffe afgørelse om en anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, er det ikke nødvendigt med et kontrolbesøg og det kan ikke kræves.
In this respect, it was argued that Article 278 TFEU, whereas a legal action against legal acts adopted by the institutions does not have suspensive effect, is not applicable in the current case because the claim made in this regard is not to suspend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, but to refrain to adopt further Regulations re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of footwear from China and Vietnam.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at retten til forsvar ikke blev behørigt respekteret gennem Kommissionens afgørelse om ikke at sende mangelskrivelser, skal det for det første bemærkes, at retten til forsvar er subjektive rettigheder, og at FESI og the Footwear Coalition ikke kan påberåbe sig en tilsidesættelse af en subjektiv ret hos andre virksomheder.
For the same reasons, it was also argued that the judgments in the Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Altana were not a legally relevant reference.
For det andet anfægter Kommissionen den påstand, at der skulle være en praksis for Kommissionen gående ud på, at der foretages en omfattende udveksling af oplysninger og en detaljeret færdiggørelse af proceduren vedrørende mangler, når der kun anvendes en skrivebordsanalyse i modsætning til når en skrivebordsanalyse suppleres af et kontrolbesøg på stedet.
Regarding Article 278 TFEU and the Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Altana judgments, the Commission agrees with FESI and the Footwear Coalition that that case-law is not applicable to assess whether or not to suspend the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.
FESI og the Footwear Coalition har ikke været i stand til at fremlægge bevis for det modsatte.
However, the Commission considers that it is obliged to implement that judgment in a reasonable time-frame, and that ongoing proceedings concerning earlier acts implementing that judgment do not constitute a valid reason for not finalising the implementation of the judgment.
Bemærkningerne fra FESI og the Footwear Coalition vedrørende diskrimination forkastes ligeledes som værende ubegrundede.
In particular, it considers that doing so would deprive interested parties other than FESI and the Footwear Coalition from exercising their rights in the administrative procedure and in a possible court procedure.
Der mindes om at ligebehandlingsprincippet er overtrådt, når EU-institutionerne behandler sammenlignelige forhold forskelligt og dermed stiller visse forhandlere dårligere end andre, uden at denne forskelsbehandling er berettiget gennem væsentlige objektive forskelle.
Regarding the validity of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that given that the latter and any new Regulation re-imposing definitive duties on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam have the same legal basis, approach and reasoning of the Commission and the invalidation of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731 would also entail that any further similar Regulation would be equally invalid.
Men dette er netop, hvad Kommissionen ikke gør: ved at kræve, at de kinesiske og vietnamesiske eksporterende producenter, der ikke indgik i stikprøven, indsendte anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling til fornyet vurdering, agter Kommissionen at bringe disse eksporterende producenter, der førhen ikke indgik i stikprøven, op på samme niveau som dem, der netop indgik i stikprøven i den oprindelige undersøgelse.
The Commission's approach would therefore not reflect a good faith effort in implementing the judgment in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International and C-34/14 Puma referred to in recital (12).
Da der desuden ikke er fastsat en minimumsfrist i denne henseende i grundforordningen, når blot tidsrammen til dette formål er rimelig og giver parterne tilstrækkelig mulighed for at indsamle (eller genindsamle) de nødvendige oplysninger, samtidig med at deres ret til forsvar beskyttes, foregår der ikke nogen diskriminering.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the implementation of the above judgment would not be subject to any deadlines imposed by the Court of Justice, would have a negative impact on the importers in the Union, while on the other hand would not have any fiscal advantage for the Union.
Hvad angår grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 1, accepterede Kommissionen i det foreliggende tilfælde de oplysninger, som de pågældende eksporterende producenter havde indsendt; Kommissionen afviste således ikke de oplysninger og baserede sin vurdering herpå.
For these reasons the Commission should refrain from implementing the judgment, pending the outcome of the Court cases mentioned in recital (80).
Kommissionen anvendte således ikke artikel 18.
The Commission refers to the reasons set out above at recital (81).
Der var derfor ikke behov for at anvende proceduren i grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 4.
Procedural requirements when assessing MET and IT claim forms
Proceduren i artikel 18, stk. 4, anvendes i tilfælde, hvor Kommissionen agter at afvise visse oplysninger fra en interesseret part og i stedet anvende de foreliggende faktiske oplysninger.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the burden of proof when assessing MET/IT claims lies with the Commission, as the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers had discharged the burden by submitting the MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
Retsgrundlaget for at genåbne undersøgelsen
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
FESI og the Footwear Coalition fremførte, at Kommissionen ville misligholde artikel 266 i TEUF, idet denne artikel ikke giver Kommissionen hjemmel til at genåbne undersøgelsen med hensyn til de udløbne foranstaltninger.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in particular, that only a desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits, and that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters.
FESI og the Footwear Coalition gentog også, at artikel 266 i TEUF ikke giver mulighed for at indføre antidumpingtold med tilbagevirkende kraft, hvilket også blev bekræftet af Domstolens afgørelse i sag C-458/98 P, IPS mod Rådet.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
I den forbindelse fremførte FESI og the Footwear Coalition, at antidumpingproceduren vedrørende importen af fodtøj fra Kina og Vietnam blev afsluttet den 31. marts 2011 med udløbet af foranstaltningerne.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Til det formål udsendte Kommissionen en meddelelse den 16. marts 2011 i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende om toldens udløb (»meddelelse om udløb«), og EU-erhvervsgrenen havde ikke hævdet, at udløbet ville medføre fortsat dumping, og en dom afsagt af Domstolen gjorde heller ikke meddelelsen om udløb ugyldig.
In addition, exporting producers during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Endvidere fremførte de samme parter, at der heller ikke ville være noget grundlag i grundforordningen, som gjorde det muligt for Kommissionen at genoptage antidumpingundersøgelsen.
On this basis, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the fundamental legal principle of granting interested parties full opportunity to exercise their rights of defence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, was not respected.
I denne forbindelse fremførte FESI og the Footwear Coalition desuden, at genoptagelsen af undersøgelsen og vurderingen af anmodningerne om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, der blev indgivet af de pågældende kinesiske og vietnamesiske eksporterende producenter i den oprindelige undersøgelse, er i strid med det universelle princip om forældelsesfrister.
On this basis, it was argued that by not giving the exporting producers the opportunity to complete incomplete information the Commission misused its powers and effectively reversed the burden of proof at the stage of the implementation.
Dette princip er fastsat i WTO-aftalen og i grundforordningen, hvor der fastsættes en tidsmæssig begrænsning på 5 år for varigheden af foranstaltninger, samt i artikel 236, stk. 1, og artikel 221, stk. 3, i EF-toldkodeksen, hvor der fastsættes en 3-årig periode for at henholdsvis importørerne kan kræve tilbagebetaling af antidumpingtold og de nationale toldmyndigheder kan opkræve importtold og antidumpingtold.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that this approach would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers that were sampled in the original investigation, but also other exporting producers in non-market economy countries that were subject to an anti-dumping investigation and filed MET/IT claims in that investigation.
Artikel 266 i TEUF giver ikke mulighed for at afvige fra dette princip.
Thus, the Chinese and Vietnamese companies concerned by the current implementation should not be made subject to the same information provision threshold as applied in a normal 15 months investigation and should not be subject to stricter procedural standards.
Det blev derudover også hævdet, at Kommissionen endnu ikke har fremlagt nogen begrundelse eller tidligere retspraksis til støtte for anvendelsen af artikel 266 i TEUF som retsgrundlag for genåbning af proceduren.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
For så vidt angår et manglende retsgrundlag for at genåbne undersøgelsen, minder Kommissionen om den i betragtning 15 nævnte retspraksis, i henhold til hvilken den kan genoptage undersøgelsen netop på det tidspunkt, hvor ulovligheden indtrådte.
The Commission recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Ifølge retspraksis skal lovligheden af en antidumpingforordning vurderes på baggrund af de objektive regler i EU-retten og ikke på baggrund af en beslutningspraksis, også selv om en sådan praksis eksisterer (hvilket ikke er tilfældet her).
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Derfor kan Kommissionens tidligere praksis, hvilket det ikke er, ikke skabe berettigede forventninger: i henhold til Domstolens faste praksis kan den berettigede forventning kun opstå, når institutionerne har afgivet præcise forsikringer, der kunne berettige en interesseret part til lovligt at udlede, at EU-institutionerne ville handle på en bestemt måde.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see recital (48)).
Hverken FESI eller the Footwear Coalition har forsøgt at påvise, at sådanne forsikringer blev afgivet i den nuværende sag.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation for the Commission to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
Dette gælder så meget desto mere, fordi den tidligere nævnte praksis ikke svarer til den faktiske og retlige situation i den nuværende sag, og forskellene ikke kan forklares med faktiske og retlige forskelle i forhold til den nuværende sag.
The Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Forskellene er som følger: Den ulovlighed, som Domstolen har konstateret, vedrører ikke konklusionerne om dumping, skade og Unionens interesser og dermed princippet om indførelse af told, men kun den præcise toldsats.
In relation to the argument that only a desk analysis was carried out, the Commission notes that a desk analysis is a procedure whereby the requests for MET/IT are analysed on the basis of the documents submitted by the exporting producer.
De tidligere annullationer, som de interesserede parter tog udgangspunkt i, vedrørte derimod konklusionerne om dumping, skade og Unionens interesser.
All MET/IT applications are subject to a desk analysis by the Commission.
Det er derfor tilladt for institutionerne at genberegne den præcise toldsats for de pågældende eksporterende producenter.
In addition, the Commission may decide to carry out on-site inspections.
Navnlig var det i den nuværende sag ikke nødvendigt at indhente supplerende oplysninger fra interesserede parter.
On-site inspections are, however, not required, nor are they carried out for every application for MET/IT.
Derimod skulle Kommissionen vurdere oplysninger, som var blevet modtaget, men ikke vurderet før vedtagelsen af forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006.
On-site inspections, where they are carried out, usually have as their purpose to confirm a certain preliminary assessment made by the institutions and/or to check the veracity of the information provided by the exporting producer concerned.
Under alle omstændigheder, som anført i betragtning 100, udgør tidligere praksis i andre tilfælde ikke nogen præcis og betingelsesløs sikkerhed i forbindelse med den nuværende sag.
In other words, if the evidence submitted by the exporting producer clearly shows that MET/IT is not warranted, the additional and optional step of on-site inspections would typically not be organised.
Endelig er alle parter, som proceduren er rettet mod, dvs. de pågældende eksporterende producenter samt parterne i retssagerne og den sammenslutning, der repræsenterer en af disse parter, gennem fremlæggelsen af oplysninger blevet underrettet om de relevante faktiske omstændigheder, på grundlag af hvilke Kommissionen agter at vedtage den nuværende vurdering af markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling.
It is for the Commission to assess whether a verification visit is appropriate.
Dermed er deres ret til at forsvare sig sikret.
The discretion to decide on the means of verifying the information in an MET/IT form lies with that institution.
I den forbindelse bemærkes navnlig, at ikke forretningsmæssigt forbundne importører ikke kan påberåbe sig ret til forsvar i en antidumpingprocedure, eftersom proceduren ikke er rettet mod dem.
So, where, as in the present case, the Commission decides, on the basis of a desk analysis, that it was in possession of sufficient evidence to rule on an MET/IT claim, a verification visit is not necessary and cannot be required.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at de pågældende foranstaltninger udløb den 31. marts 2011, forstår Kommissionen ikke, hvorfor foranstaltningernes udløb skulle være relevant for Kommissionens mulighed for at vedtage en ny retsakt til at afløse den annullerede retsakt som følge af en dom, der annullerede den oprindelige retsakt.
Concerning the claim that the rights of defence were not appropriately respected through the Commission's decision not to send deficiency letters, it is, first of all, recalled that rights of defence are subjective rights, and that FESI and the Footwear Coalition cannot rely on a violation of a subjective right of other companies.
I henhold til den retspraksis, der er omtalt i betragtning 15, genoptages den administrative procedure netop på det tidspunkt, hvor ulovligheden indtrådte.
Second, the Commission contests the assertion that there is a practice by the Commission that significant exchange of information and a detailed deficiency completion process is carried out when use is made of desk analysis alone as opposed to desk analysis plus on-site verification.
Antidumpingprocedurerne er derfor stadig igangværende som følge af annullationen af den retsakt, der afsluttede procedurerne.
Indeed, FESI and the Footwear Coalition have not been able to provide evidence to the contrary.
Kommissionen er forpligtet til at afslutte disse procedurer — grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 4, fastsætter, at en undersøgelse skal afsluttes ved en retsakt fra Kommissionen.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition's comments on discrimination must equally be rejected as unfounded.
Artikel 236 i EF-toldkodeksen
It is recalled the principle of equal treatment is violated where the Union institutions treat like cases differently, thereby placing some traders at a disadvantage by comparison to others, without such differentiation being justified by the existence of substantial objective differences.
FESI og the Footwear Coalition fremførte også, at den valgte procedure til at genåbne undersøgelsen og indføre tolden med tilbagevirkende kraft udgør magtmisbrug fra Kommissionens side og er i strid med TEU.
Yet, that is precisely not what the Commission is doing: by requiring the non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers to file MET/IT claims for re-assessment, it intends to bring these formerly non-sampled exporting producers on the same footing as those who were sampled in the initial investigation.
FESI og the Footwear Coalition fastholder i denne forbindelse, at Kommissionen ikke har beføjelse til at gribe ind i EF-toldkodeksens artikel 236, stk. 1, ved at forhindre tilbagebetaling af antidumpingtold.
In addition, as the basic Regulation does not set out a minimum timeframe in this regard, so long as the timeframe for this purpose is reasonable and provides the parties with sufficient opportunity to assemble (or re-assemble) the information needed while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence, no discrimination occurs.
De fremførte, at det var op til de nationale toldmyndigheder at drage konsekvenserne af en annullering af en retsakt, der indførte tolden, og at de nationale toldmyndigheder også ville være forpligtet til at godtgøre den antidumpingtold, der er blevet erklæret ugyldig af Domstolen.
Regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, in the current case, the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned, it did not reject this information and based its assessment on it.
I denne forbindelse fremførte FESI og the Footwear Coalition, at grundforordningens artikel 14, stk. 3, ikke bemyndiger Kommissionen til at fravige EF-toldkodeksens artikel 236, da begge lovgivninger er af samme retsorden, og grundforordningen kan ikke betragtes som lex specialis i forhold til EF-toldkodeksen.
Therefore, the Commission did not apply Article 18.
De samme parter fremførte endvidere at grundforordningens artikel 14, stk. 3, ikke henviser til artikel 236 i EF-toldkodeksen og kun nævner, at særlige bestemmelser kan vedtages af Kommissionen, men ikke undtagelser til EF-toldkodeksen.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Som svar hertil er det vigtigt at understrege, at grundforordningens artikel 14, stk. 1, ikke automatisk fastsætter, at de regler, der gælder for EU's toldlovgivning til indførelsen af den individuelle antidumpingtold, finder anvendelse.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Derimod giver grundforordningens artikel 14, stk. 3, EU's institutioner ret til — hvor det er nødvendigt og nyttigt — at gennemføre og gøre reglerne for Unionens toldlovgivning gældende.
Legal basis of re-opening of the investigation
Medlemsstaternes toldmyndigheder beslutter stadig — på grundlag af de konklusioner, som Kommissionen har draget med hensyn til anmodningerne om markedsøkonomisk behandling og individuel behandling — om der bør indrømmes godtgørelser eller ej.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear from China and Vietnam had been concluded on 31 March 2011 with the expiry of the measures.
Selv om det er korrekt, at EU's toldlovgivning ikke tillader, at der indføres forhindringer for godtgørelse af fejlagtigt betalt told, kan der ikke fremsættes samme påstand i forbindelse med godtgørelse af antidumpingtold.
To this aim, the Commission had issued a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the expiry of the duties on 16 March 2011 (‘notice of expiry’), the Union industry had not claimed any continuation of dumping and also the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union did not invalidate the notice of expiry.