natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det tredje påstod Cortina, at Kommissionens udtalelse i betragtning 46 om, at Domstolen annullerede den anfægtede forordning og gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009, for så vidt angår eksport af visse typer fodtøj fra visse kinesiske og vietnamesiske eksporterende producenter, ikke er korrekt, idet dommen i sag C-659/13 og C-34/14 ikke annullerede forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 og gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009, for så vidt angår de 19 pågældende eksporterende producenter, men havde annulleret disse forordninger med erga omnes-virkning.
This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not.
Cortina mente, at hvis Kommissionen genindførte en antidumpingtold kun på importen fra de 19 pågældende eksporterende producenter, og ikke på importen fra andre eksporterende producenter, der ligeledes blev berørt af Domstolens dom i de forenede sager C-659/13 og C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited og Puma SE, ville dette udgøre uberettiget forskelsbehandling af importen fra disse andre eksporterende producenter og ville desuden være i strid med artikel 266 i TEUF.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Hvad angår påstanden om forskelsbehandling af importen fra andre eksporterende producenter, der blev berørt af Domstolens dom i de forenede sager C-659/13 og C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited og Puma SE, bemærker Kommissionen, at eksporterende producenter og visse importører, der var berørt af denne forordning, nyder domstolsbeskyttelse i EU's retssystem mod det.
An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.
Andre importører nyder godt af denne beskyttelse via de nationale domstole, der gennemfører EU-retten.
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
Med henblik på at gennemføre dommen i de forenede sager C-659/13 og C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited og Puma SE vedtog Kommissionen, jf. betragtning 21, gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2016/223.
Insofar as it concerns the alleged discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, it should be noted that the decision of the Council not to re-impose duties was clearly taken with regard to the particular circumstances of the specific situation as it stood at the time the Commission made its proposal for the re-imposition of those duties and in particular on the grounds that the anti-dumping duties concerned had already been reimbursed, and to the extent that the original communication of the debt to the debtor in question had been withdrawn following the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang.
I nævnte forordnings artikel 1 pålagde Kommissionen de nationale toldmyndigheder at fremsende alle anmodninger om godtgørelse af den endelige antidumpingtold, der er betalt på importen af fodtøj med oprindelse i Kina og Vietnam, som importørerne havde fremsat på grundlag af EF-toldkodeksens artikel 236 og baseret på, at en eksporterende producent, som ikke indgik i stikprøven, havde anmodet om markedsøkonomisk eller individuel behandling i den oprindelige undersøgelse.
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
Kommissionen vil vurdere de relevante anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling eller individuel behandling og genindføre en passende told.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
På dette grundlag vil de nationale toldmyndigheder derefter træffe afgørelse om anmodningen om tilbagebetaling af og fritagelse for antidumpingtold.
In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.
For al import af fodtøj, hvor ovennævnte kriterier er opfyldt, vil Kommissionen således undersøge anmodningerne om markedsøkonomisk behandling og individuel behandling, og antidumpingtolden vil blive genindført på grundlag af de objektive kriterier i artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b), og artikel 9, stk. 5, i grundforordningen før dens ændring.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Derfor vil alle andre eksporterende producenter fra Kina og Vietnam, der ikke indgik i stikprøven, og deres importører blive behandlet på samme måde på et senere tidspunkt i henhold til den procedure, der er fastsat i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2016/223.
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council.
Kun i tilfælde, hvor der ikke er udestående nationale procedurer, vil der ikke blive foretaget en vurdering af anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk og individuel behandling, da dette ville være formålsløst.
This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable than the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
For det fjerde påstod Cortina, at der ville være tale om forskelsbehandling, hvis man genindførte en antidumpingtold for de 19 pågældende eksporterende producenter, idet der ikke blev genindført antidumpingtold efter Brosmann- og Aokang-dommene.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’) the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation); (ii) the consultations that were required under Regulation (EC) No 384/96 were initiated and concluded; and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Denne påstand er ubegrundet.
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
Importører, der har importeret fra Brosmann og de fire øvrige eksporterende producenter, der er berørt af dommene i sagerne C-247/10 P og C-249/10 P, befinder sig i en anden faktisk og retlig situation, fordi deres eksporterende producenter besluttede at bestride den anfægtede forordning, og fordi de fik godtgjort deres told, således at de beskyttes af artikel 221, stk. 3, i EF-toldkodeksen.
That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures).
En sådan anfægtelse og en sådan godtgørelse har ikke fundet sted for andre.
The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Se i denne forbindelse også betragtning 118-122.
Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to ‘procedures initiated for the adoption of measures’, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of ‘procedure’ in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting said anti-dumping measures.
For det femte påstod Cortina, at der opstod en række proceduremæssige uregelmæssigheder i denne undersøgelse.
The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force.
For det første påstod virksomheden, at de pågældende eksporterende producenter ikke længere med sikkerhed befinder sig i en situation, hvor de kan indsende relevante bemærkninger eller tilføre yderligere bevis til støtte for de anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, som de indsendte for flere år siden.
In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific ‘procedure for adoption’ and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.
Eksempelvis eksisterer virksomhederne måske ikke længere, eller de relevante dokumenter foreligger måske heller ikke længere.
Accordingly, the decision-making procedure introduced by the Omnibus I Regulation was the correct one to apply.
Desuden påstod Cortina, at Kommissionens foranstaltninger i modsætning til i den oprindelige undersøgelse både retligt og faktisk kun påvirker importører, som imidlertid ikke har mulighed for at fremlægge relevante bemærkninger og ikke kan pålægge deres leverandører at samarbejde med Kommissionen.
With regard to Cortina, it first claimed that the Commission has no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation.
Kommissionen bemærker, at der i grundforordningen ikke er noget krav til Kommissionen om at give eksporterende virksomheder, der anmoder om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, mulighed for at tilvejebringe manglende faktuelle oplysninger.
Cortina argued that the proceeding, which was closed by the expiry of the measures on 31 March 2011, was not invalidated by the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, and that therefore, it cannot be re-opened.
Den minder om, at bevisbyrden ifølge retspraksis påhviler den producent, som ønsker at anmode om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b).
In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals (104) and (105) above.
Derimod påhviler det Kommissionen at vurdere, om de af den pågældende producent angivne forhold udgør tilstrækkelige beviser for, at kriterierne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), første afsnit, med henblik på at tildele producenten markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling er opfyldt (jf. betragtning 44).
Second, Cortina claimed that the current proceeding is in breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty enshrined in Article 10 of the basic Regulation.
Retten til at blive hørt vedrører vurderingen af disse faktiske omstændigheder, men omfatter ikke retten til at afhjælpe mangelfulde oplysninger.
As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘WTO ADA’), Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, which follows the text of Article 10(1) of the WTO ADA, stipulates that provisional measures and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the decision taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enters into force.
Ellers ville den eksporterende producent kunne forlænge vurderingen på ubestemt tid ved at fremlægge oplysningerne lidt efter lidt.
In the present case, the anti-dumping duties in question are only applied to products which entered into free circulation after the provisional and the contested (definitive) Regulation taken pursuant to 7(1) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation respectively had entered into force.
Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet til at anmode den eksporterende producent om at supplere anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling.
Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.
Som nævnt i foregående betragtning kan Kommissionen basere sin vurdering på de oplysninger, som den eksporterende producent har indgivet.
The Commission also observes that there is neither violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Under alle omstændigheder har de pågældende eksporterende producenter ikke anfægtet Kommissionens vurdering af deres anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, og de har ikke meddelt, hvilke dokumenter eller medarbejdere de ikke længere råder over.
As to retroactivity, the case-law of the Court distinguishes, when assessing whether a measure is retroactive, between the application of a new rule to a situation that has become definitive (also referred to as an existing or definitively established legal situation), and a situation that started before the entry into force of the new rule, but which is not yet definitive (also referred to as a temporary situation).
Påstanden er derfor så abstrakt, at institutionerne ikke kan tage hensyn til disse vanskeligheder i forbindelse med vurderingen af anmodningerne om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling.
In the present case, the situation of the imports of the products concerned that occurred during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 has not yet become definitive, because, as a result of the annulment of the contested Regulation, the anti-dumping duty applicable to them has not yet been definitively established.
Da denne påstand er baseret på formodninger og ikke understøttes af nøjagtige angivelser af, hvilke dokumenter og medarbejdere man ikke længere råder over, og af relevansen af disse dokumenter og medarbejdere for vurderingen af anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, afvises denne påstand.
At the same time, importers of footwear were warned that such a duty may be imposed by the publication of the Notice of Initiation and the provisional Regulation.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at en importør ikke ville have mulighed for at fremlægge relevante oplysninger, bemærker Kommissionen følgende: for det første er importører ikke omfattet af retten til forsvar, da antidumpingforanstaltningerne ikke er rettet mod dem, men mod de eksporterende producenter.
It is standing case-law of the Union Courts that operators cannot acquire legitimate expectations until the institutions have adopted an act closing the administrative procedure, which has become definitive.
For det andet havde importørerne mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger herom allerede i den administrative procedure forud for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede forordning.
This Regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is ongoing: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities.
Hvis importørerne for det tredje mente, at der var tale om en uregelmæssighed i denne forbindelse, måtte de træffe de nødvendige kontraktmæssige aftaler med deres leverandører for at sikre sig, at de rådede over de nødvendige dokumenter.
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an ongoing situation.
Påstanden må derfor afvises.
This Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an ongoing situation.
For det sjette påstod Cortina, at Kommissionen undlod at undersøge, om indførelse af antidumpingtold ville være i Unionens interesse, og fremførte, at foranstaltningerne ville være i strid med Unionens interesser, fordi i) foranstaltningerne allerede havde deres ønskede virkning, da de blev indført i første omgang, ii) foranstaltningerne ikke ville udgøre en yderligere fordel for EU-erhvervsgrenen, iii) foranstaltningerne ikke ville have nogen indvirkning på de eksporterende producenter, og iv) foranstaltningerne ville pålægge importørerne i Unionen en betydelig omkostning.
In any event, even if there was retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:
Den foreliggende sag vedrører kun anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, fordi dette er det eneste punkt, hvor EU's retsinstanser har identificeret en retlig fejl.
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them.
Hvad angår Unionens interesser, er vurderingen i forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 stadig gyldig.
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA) it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected’.
Desuden er den nuværende foranstaltning berettiget for at beskytte Unionens finansielle interesser.
In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
For det syvende påstod Cortina, at antidumpingtolden, hvis den genindføres, ikke længere vil kunne opkræves, da forældelsesfristen i artikel 221, stk. 3, i EF-toldkodeksen (nu artikel 103, stk. 1, i EU-toldkodeksen) var udløbet.
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital (12) above, the Court only found an illegality with regard to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regard to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regard to the finding of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
Cortina mente, at denne situation var et tilfælde af misbrug af beføjelser fra Kommissions side.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Kommissionen minder om, at forældelsesfristen iflg. artikel 221, stk. 3 i EF-toldkodeksen/artikel 103, stk. 1, i EU-toldkodeksen ikke finder anvendelse, når der er indgivet en appel i henhold til artikel 243 i EF-toldkodeksen/artikel 44, stk. 2 i EU-toldkodeksen, hvilket er tilfældet i alle de nuværende sager, som vedrører appelsager på grundlag af artikel 236 i EF-toldkodeksen/artikel 119 i EU-toldkodeksen.
Third, Cortina claimed that the Commission's statement in recital (46) that the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers is incorrect, insofar as judgment in cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 did not annul Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to the 19 exporting producers concerned, but it had annulled these regulations with erga omnes effect.
En klage i henhold til artikel 103, stk. 3, i EU-toldkodeksen, jf. præciseringen i artikel 44, stk. 2, i samme forordning, strækker sig fra den oprindelige anfægtelse til afgørelsen fra de nationale toldmyndigheder om indførelse af told og frem til den endelige dom afsagt af den nationale ret, herunder, hvis det er nødvendigt, en anmodning om en præjudiciel afgørelse.
According to Cortina, if the Commission were to re-impose an anti-dumping duty only on imports from the 19 exporting producers concerned, and not on imports from other exporting producers equally affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, it would constitute unjustifiable discrimination vis-à-vis imports of these other exporting producers, and it would also be in breach of Article 266 TFEU.
Perioden på tre år er derfor udsat fra datoen for anfægtelsen.
Regarding the claim of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis imports of other exporting producers affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by this Regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against it.
Endelig hævdede Cortina, at efter udløbet af afsnit 15, litra a), nr. ii), i Kinas protokol for tiltrædelse af WTO den 11. december 2016, kan Kommissionen ikke længere benytte sig af den metode, der blev anvendt til at fastsætte den normale værdi for kinesiske eksportører i den oprindelige undersøgelse (dvs. referencelandsmetoden i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a)).
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
Denne påstand afvises derfor.
As mentioned in recital (21), in view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
Denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelsen fra det udvalg, der er nedsat i medfør af artikel 15, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2016/1036 —
In Article 1 of that regulation the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the original investigation.
VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
The Commission will assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
Der indføres en endelig antidumpingtold på importen af fodtøj med overdel af læder eller kunstlæder, undtagen sportsfodtøj, fodtøj, hvortil der kræves en særlig teknologi, hjemmefodtøj og andre typer af indendørs fodtøj og fodtøj med beskyttelseståkappe, med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og Vietnam, produceret af de eksporterende producenter, som er opført i bilag II til denne forordning, og henhørende under KN-kode: 64032000, ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 og ex64051000, som fandt sted i anvendelsesperioden for forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 og gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009.
Therefore, for all imports of footwear where the above criteria are fulfilled the Commission will examine the MET and IT claims and anti-dumping duties will be re-imposed based on the objective criteria laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Taric-koderne er opført i bilag I til nærværende forordning.
Therefore, all other non-sampled exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam and their importers will be treated in the same fashion at a later stage pursuant to the procedure set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.