natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som svar på disse bemærkninger bemærkede Kommissionen, at det specifikt fremgår af grundforordningens artikel 19, at interesserede parter kan afgive oplysninger på et fortroligt grundlag, når ønsket herom er berettiget.
As stated in recitals (45) to (49), the Commission must not reveal any information which is deemed confidential upon good cause being shown without the specific permission from the supplier of such information.
Desuden omfattede det åbne dossier, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter, et fyldestgørende resumé af de fortrolige oplysninger.
The Aeolus Group claimed that a determination of injury for purposes of Article VI of GATT 1994 should be based on positive evidence and involve an objective examination of both (a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products; and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products.
Det forhold, at visse samarbejdsvillige EU-producenters identitet var fortrolig, forhindrede ikke Kommissionen i at foretage en objektiv undersøgelse af de faktiske omstændigheder, og det forhindrede heller ikke interesserede parter i at udøve deres ret til forsvar.
It considered that the Commission should not base its decisions on vague elements or on confidential data supplied by the parties but on all the information and objective facts available.
Desuden blev de interesserede parters ret til at forsvare sig sikret gennem høringskonsulentens indgreb, jf. betragtning 37.
The requirement of ‘objective examination’ implies that the domestic industry and the effects of dumped imports must be investigated in an unbiased manner, without favouring the interests of any interested party, or group of interested parties, in the investigation.
Stikprøveudtagning
According to the Aeolus Group, most of the data in the proceedings remained confidential, thus hindering the exercise of the right of defence by interested parties.
CRIA og CCCMC hævdede, at kinesiske små og mellemstore producentvirksomheder blev udsat for forskelsbehandling i forhold til små og mellemstore producentvirksomheder i Unionen, da små og mellemstore virksomheder (SMV'er) i Unionen var berettigede til at udfylde et mindre detaljeret (og dermed mindre pålideligt) spørgeskema.
However, the Aeolus Group submitted that the initiation of the investigation was clearly to protect the interests of a specific segment of the Union industry (namely the retreading industry), without taking into consideration that most of the large European tyre manufacturers also import the product concerned from the PRC and resell it on the Union market.
Disse parter hævdede, at de kinesiske små og mellemstore producentvirksomheder kan være blevet afskrækket fra at deltage i undersøgelsen på grund af den betydelige byrde, som en besvarelse af et fuldstændigt spørgeskema medfører.
In reply to those comments the Commission noted that Article 19 of the basic Regulation specifically provides that interested parties can supply information on a confidential basis upon good cause being shown.
Desuden hævdede CRIA og CCCMC, at eftersom Kommissionen (angiveligt fejlagtigt) hovedsageligt havde baseret sin fastsættelse af skade på oplysningerne om SMV'ers små mængder, blev de kinesiske små og mellemstore producentvirksomheders underrepræsentation yderligere forværret af, at små og mellemstore producentvirksomheder i EU kunne indgive en mindre fuldstændig og dermed mindre pålidelig besvarelse.
In addition, a meaningful summary of the confidential information was included in the open file for inspection by interested parties.
En lignende påstand blev gentaget efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger.
The fact that the identity of certain cooperating Union producers was kept confidential did not prevent the Commission from performing an objective examination of the facts, nor did it hinder interested parties from exercising their rights of defence.
Desuden anmodede CRIA og CCCMC om, at Kommissionen fremlagde de specifikke oplysninger om EU-producenter, der indgik i stikprøven, navnlig for at kontrollere repræsentativiteten af EU-erhvervsgrenen i stikprøven for både nye og regummierede dæk.
Furthermore, the rights of defence of interested parties were safeguarded as explained in recital (37) through the intervention of the Hearing Officer.
Denne påstand blev gentaget efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger.
Sampling
Påstanden om, at fastsættelsen af skade hovedsageligt var baseret på oplysninger fra små og mellemstore producentvirksomheder i Unionen, er ukorrekt, da Kommissionen fastsatte en repræsentativ stikprøve til nøjagtig analyse af EU-producenternes skadessituation.
The CRIA and the CCCMC claimed that Chinese small and medium-sized (SMEs) producers were discriminated against compared with Union SMEs producers as Union SMEs were entitled to complete a less detailed (and thus less reliable) questionnaire.
Kommissionen vægtede EU-erhvervsgrenens salg for at sikre en korrekt repræsentation af SMV'ernes salg på EU-markedet.
Those parties claimed that Chinese SME producers may have been discouraged from participating in the investigation because of the significant burden that completing a full questionnaire response entails.
Det er desuden Kommissionens faste praksis at sende et forenklet spørgeskema til små og mellemstore producentvirksomheder i Unionen, men dette har ingen indvirkning på rigtigheden af undersøgelsens oplysninger eller grundigheden af undersøgelsen.
Furthermore, the CRIA and the CCCMC claimed that, given that the Commission was (allegedly erroneously) basing its injury determination predominantly on the data of the small volume of SME' sales, the underrepresentation of Chinese SMEs producers was further aggravated by the fact that Union SMEs producers could provide a less complete and thus less reliable response.
Denne påstand blev derfor afvist.
A similar claim was reiterated after the final disclosure.
Som nævnt i betragtning 15 i forordningen om midlertidig told fremførte to eksporterende producenter, at fortrolighed hindrede dem i at kontrollere, om klageren tegner sig for mere end 25 % af den samlede EU-produktion.
Moreover, the CRIA and the CCCMC requested that the Commission disclose the specific data on Union producers sampling, in particular to verify the representativity of the Union industry sample for both new and retreaded tyres.
De fastholdt også, at de ikke kunne kontrollere, om stikprøven for EU-erhvervsgrenen var tilstrækkeligt repræsentativ.
That claim was reiterated after the final disclosure.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene anmodede om høringskonsulentens indgriben for at sikre de interesserede parters ret til forsvar i lyset af disse påstande.
The statement that the injury determination was predominantly based on the data of Union SME producers is incorrect as the Commission established a representative sample to accurately analyse the injury situation of the Union producers.
Ved note af 12. juli 2018 tilføjede høringskonsulenten en note til det åbne dossier med følgende to konstateringer:
The Commission weighted the Union sales to ensure the proper representation of the SMEs' sales on the Union market.
Oplysningerne i det fortrolige dossier underbygger konklusionen om, at Kommissionens tjenestegrene korrekt har afspejlet de oplysninger, der er modtaget i forbindelse med beregningen af de stående krav.
Moreover, it is the constant practice of the Commission to send a simplified questionnaire to SME producers in the Union, but this fact has no impact on the correctness of the data provided or thoroughness of the investigation.
Klageren, herunder de to EU-producenter, der har anmodet om anonymitet, tegner sig for over 25 % af den samlede EU-produktion af den undersøgte vare.
Therefore, that claim was rejected.
Oplysningerne i det fortrolige dossier underbygger konklusionen om, at den stikprøveudtagning, som de af Kommissionens tjenestegrene, der er ansvarlige for undersøgelsen, foretog, er beskrevet korrekt i den relevante note til dossieret af 18. oktober 2017 om prøveudtagning, som er indeholdt i det dossier, der stilles til rådighed for de interesserede parter.«
As mentioned in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, two exporting producers argued that confidentiality hindered them from verifying whether the complainant represents more than 25 % of the total Union production.
Kommissionen fandt derfor, at disse interesserede parters ret til forsvar var blevet respekteret.
They also maintained that they could not verify whether the sample for the Union industry was sufficiently representative.
Afslutningsvis hævdede en række eksporterende producenter, at manglende viden om mulige forbindelser mellem anonyme klagere og kinesiske eksporterende producenter hindrede deres ret til forsvar.
The Commission services requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer in order to guarantee the rights of defence of the interested parties in light of those claims.
Det blev imidlertid ikke dokumenteret, hvordan viden om en sådan mulig forbindelse ville hjælpe dem til at forsvare deres sag.
By note of 12 July 2018, the Hearing Officer added a note to the open file with the following two findings:
Selv om der hypotetisk set var en forbindelse mellem en eller flere anonyme EU-producenter og en eller flere kinesiske eksporterende producenter, ville analysen af dumping og skade ikke blive væsentligt påvirket.
The data in the confidential file support the conclusion that Commission services have correctly reflected the data received in the calculation of the standing requirements.
Giti-gruppen anførte, at Kommissionen burde have taget hver enkelt segments andel af det samlede salg i Unionen i betragtning ved udtagelsen af stikprøven blandt EU-producenter.
The complainant, including the two Union producers having requested anonymity, represents more than 25 % of total Union production of the product under investigation.
En sådan fremgangsmåde ville have været mere objektiv i forhold til den nuværende fremgangsmåde, hvor vægten af oplysningerne om den største skade inden for segment 3 er oppustet efter Giti-gruppens mening.
The data in the confidential file support the conclusion that the sampling conducted by the Commission services responsible for the investigation has been accurately described in their relevant note for the file of 18 October 2017 on the subject of sampling, which is included in the file for inspection by the interested parties’.
Som forklaret i betragtning 24 i forordningen om midlertidig told tog Kommissionen højde for segmenterne ved udtagningen af stikprøven blandt EU-producenter.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the rights of defence of the interested parties were respected.
Desuden indeholdt betragtning 157 og 158 i forordningen om midlertidig told og yderligere præciseringer i noten til det i betragtning 28 i nærværende forordning omhandlede dossier en grundig redegørelse for den metode, der var anvendt til at afspejle alle segmenter korrekt i de mikroøkonomiske indikatorer (se også afsnit 4.5.1.2).
Finally, some exporting producers alleged that the lack of knowledge of potential links between anonymous complainants and Chinese exporting producers impeded their rights of defence.
Adgang til oplysninger
However, it was not substantiated how knowledge about such a potential link would help them in defending their case.
CRIA og CCCMC anmodede om, at deres retlige repræsentanter skulle gives fuld adgang til de beregninger af dumpingmargenen, prisvirkninger og skadesmargen, som Kommissionen havde foretaget, herunder adgang til alle fortrolige oplysninger fra andre interesserede parter, som disse beregninger er baseret på (med forbehold af relevante fortrolighedsforpligtelser).
Even if, hypothetically, there were a link between one or several anonymous Union producers and one or several Chinese exporting producers, the analysis for dumping and injury would not be materially affected.
CRIA og CCCMC påpegede, at kravene i grundforordningens artikel 19 skal afvejes mod retten til forsvar, som er sikret ved artikel 41 i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.
The Giti Group submitted that the Commission should have taken the share of each tier in total Union sales into consideration when selecting the sample of Union producers.
CRIA og CCCMC hævdede, at de advokater, der ville få indsigt i oplysningerne, er registreret i en europæisk advokatsammenslutning og underlagt strenge regler for advokater, og at de, hvis de afslører fortrolige oplysninger for deres kunder, vil blive pålagt alvorlige disciplinære sanktioner, herunder fratagelse af deres advokatbestalling og mulig retsforfølgelse.
Such an approach would have been more objective compared to the current approach where the weight of most injured tier 3 data is inflated in the Giti Group's view.
CRIA og CCCMC hævdede derfor, at Kommissionen ved at give indsigt i det fortrolige dossier ikke ville overtræde sin forpligtelse til at beskytte fortrolige oplysninger og samtidig ville gøre det muligt effektivt at udøve retten til forsvar.
As explained in recital (24) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission indeed took into account the tiers for the selection of the sample of Union producers.
Desuden fandt disse parter, at høringskonsulentens indgriben vedrørende adgang til de fortrolige oplysninger og videregivelse af konklusionerne til interesserede parter ikke kan betragtes som en erstatning for gennemgangen af disse beregninger.
In addition, the provisional Regulation in recitals (157) and (158) and further clarifications in the note for the file mentioned in recital (28) of this Regulation contained a thorough explanation of the methodology used to reflect all tiers appropriately in the microeconomic indicators (see further Section 4.5.1.2 below).
I forbindelse med høringen med høringskonsulenten den 16. august 2018 gjorde Hankook-gruppen gældende, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesat virksomhedens ret til forsvar ved at nægte den adgang til data, som efter Hankook-gruppens mening med urette blev betragtet som fortrolige.
Access to information
Hankook-gruppen fremsatte en generel anmodning om en ændring af politikken for behandling af fortrolige oplysninger og opfordrede Kommissionens tjenestegrene til at ændre den nuværende praksis med hensyn til offentliggørelse af beregninger og i fremtiden at give de retlige repræsentanter for interesserede parter adgang til beregningerne i videst muligt omfang.
The CRIA and the CCCMC requested that full access should be granted to its legal representatives to the dumping margin, price effects and injury margin calculations carried out by the Commission, including access to any confidential information from other interested parties on which such calculations are based (subject to appropriate non-disclosure commitments).
Efter Hankook-gruppens opfattelse bør hensynet til beskyttelse af fortrolige data kun finde anvendelse i det omfang, at en sådan beskyttelse er nødvendig for at forebygge eventuelle skader for de berørte virksomheder.
The CRIA and the CCCMC pointed out that the requirements of Article 19 of the basic Regulation should be balanced against the rights of defence, which are guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Skaden ville ikke opstå, hvis de retlige repræsentanter kunne udføre deres arbejde inden for rammerne af en fortrolighedsaftale med Kommissionens tjenestegrene.
The CRIA and the CCCMC argued that the lawyers that would be granted the access are registered at a European bar association and are subject to strict bar rules and disclosing confidential information to their clients would result in severe disciplinary actions, including disbarment and potential criminal action.
For så vidt angår den nuværende undersøgelse, anmodede Hankook-gruppen også om, at deres retlige repræsentanter fik adgang til alle dumping- og skadesmargenberegninger, herunder fuldstændige data for den normale værdi.
Therefore, the CRIA and the CCCMC argued that the access to the confidential file would not breach the Commission's obligation to protect confidential information whilst allowing an effective exercise of the rights of defence.
I henhold til grundforordningens artikel 19 må Kommissionen ikke videregive oplysninger, som i sagens natur er fortrolige, eller som stilles til rådighed på et fortroligt grundlag af parter, og for hvilke ønsket om fortrolighed er berettiget, uden udtrykkelig tilladelse fra den, der har givet oplysningerne.
Moreover, those parties considered that the intervention of the Hearing Officer to access the confidential information and report its conclusion to interested parties cannot be considered as a substitute for the review of these calculations.
Ved artiklen påtænkes det ikke at give nogen anden part, herunder advokater registreret i en europæisk advokatsammenslutning, indsigt i oplysningerne.
At the earing with the Hearing Officer on 16 August 2018 the Hankook Group claimed that the Commission had breached its rights of defence by denying it access to data which the Hankook Group considered as unjustly confidential.
Det bør også bemærkes, at CRIA og CCCMC den 9. januar 2018 fremlagde fuldmagter, der var undertegnet af samarbejdsvillige og stikprøveudtagne eksporterende producenter.
The Hankook Group made a general request for a policy change with respect of handling of confidential data and invited the Commission services to change the current practice regarding disclosure of calculations and, in the future, to allow the legal representatives of the interested parties to access the calculations to the fullest extent.
Kommissionen fandt, at nogle af de fuldmagter, som de kinesiske eksporterende producenter i stikprøven havde givet CRIA og CCCMC, ikke dækkede adgang til fortrolige oplysninger, men kun omfattede deltagelse i høringer, indgivelse af bemærkninger og indlæg.
In the Hankook's Group view, the protection of confidential data should only apply to an extent that such protection is necessary to prevent possible harm to concerned companies.
Desuden fremgår det af Domstolens retspraksis, at beskyttelsen af retten til forsvar, hvor det er nødvendigt, skal afstemmes med fortrolighedsprincippet, der er specifikt fastsat i grundforordningens artikel 19.
Such harm would not arise if the legal representatives were to operate under a confidentiality agreement with the Commission services.
I dette særlige tilfælde blev det påvist, at ønsket om fortrolighed var berettiget, da en række interesserede parter anmodede om, at deres navne blev hemmeligholdt af frygt for, at de kunne blive udsat for gengældelsesforanstaltninger fra kunder eller konkurrenter.
In respect to the current investigation, the Hankook Group also requested access for their legal representatives to all dumping and injury margins calculations, including the full normal value data.
Kommissionen vurderede disse påstande og fandt dem berettigede.
Article 19 of the basic Regulation stipulates that the Commission must not reveal any information which is by nature confidential, or which is provided on a confidential basis by parties and for which a good cause is shown, without the specific permission from the supplier of such information.
Den konkluderede derfor, at videregivelsen af sådanne fortrolige oplysninger ville have betydelige negative følger for disse parter.
It does not envisage that any other party, including lawyers registered at a European bar association, is granted such access.
Denne afstemning af forskellige hensyn gør det muligt at modtage ikkefortrolige sammendrag (for eksempel i form af serier og/eller indekserede elementer af oplysninger), hvis de pågældende ikkefortrolige oplysninger ikke fører til afsløring af virksomhedshemmeligheder.
It should also be noted that, on 9 January 2018, the CRIA and the CCCMC submitted power of attorneys signed by cooperating and sampled exporting producers.
Imidlertid blev fuld offentliggørelse af de fortrolige oplysninger ikke anset som forenelig med forpligtelsen til at beskytte sådanne oplysninger.
The Commission found that some of the power of attorneys given by sampled Chinese exporting producers to the CRIA and the CCCMC did not cover access to confidential information but only covered attending hearings, submitting comments and lodging submissions.
På tilsvarende vis — og fordi EU-lovgiveren ikke tog højde for en sådan undtagelse i grundforordningen — vurderede Kommissionen, at selv om de advokater, der er registreret i en europæisk advokatsammenslutning, er underlagt strenge regler for advokater og kan retsforfølges i tilfælde af, at disse regler overtrædes, er det ikke ensbetydende med, at Kommissionen kan give adgang til fortrolige oplysninger i modstrid med den gældende lovgivning.
Furthermore, the case-law of the Court of Justice stipulates that the protection of rights of the defence must, where necessary, be reconciled with the principle of confidentiality, which is specifically laid down in Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Kommissionen konkluderede derfor, at der ikke kunne gives adgang til fortrolige oplysninger til advokater, der er registreret i en europæisk advokatsammenslutning.
In this particular case, good cause was shown because several interested parties requested that their names be kept confidential for fear that they could face retaliation by customers or competitors.
Under alle omstændigheder er et yderligere element til beskyttelse af de interesserede parters ret til at forsvare sig muligheden for at henvende sig til høringskonsulenten i handelsprocedurer i henhold til artikel 15 i afgørelse truffet af formanden for Europa-Kommissionen af 29. februar 2012 om høringskonsulentens funktion og kompetenceområde under behandlingen af visse handelsprocedurer.
The Commission assessed those claims and deemed them warranted.
Da de interesserede parter ikke søgte høringskonsulentens udtalelse på dette punkt, må kravet følgelig afvises.
Therefore, it concluded that the disclosure of such confidential information would have a significant adverse effect for these parties.
Desuden fandt Kommissionen, at det åbne dossier, der stilles til rådighed for de interesserede parter, herunder CRIA og CCCMC samt Hankook-gruppen, indeholdt alle de relevante sagsoplysninger, der var anvendt i undersøgelsen.
That reconciliation permits the receipt of non-confidential summaries of confidential information (provided, for instance, in the form of ranges and/or indexed elements of information) where that non-confidential information would not lead to a disclosure of business secrets.
Hvis oplysningerne blev vurderet til at være fortrolige, var der et meningsfuldt sammendrag heraf i det åbne dossier.
However, full disclosure of the confidential information was not deemed reconcilable with the duty to protect such information.
Alle interesserede parter, herunder CRIA og CCCMC, havde adgang til det åbne dossier og kunne konsultere det.
In the same vein, because the Union legislator did not provide for such an exception in the basic Regulation, the Commission considered that the fact that the lawyers registered with a European bar association are subject to strict bar rules and are potentially subject to sanctions in case of breach of these rules does not allow the Commission to grant access to confidential information in breach of the legislation in force.
På baggrund af ovenstående mente Kommissionen, at oplysningerne i oplysningsdokumenterne og i det åbne dossier var tilstrækkelige til at sikre alle interesserede parters ret til at forsvare sig.
The Commission thus concluded that the access to confidential information could not be granted to lawyers registered at a European bar association.
Efter høringen med høringskonsulenten offentliggjorde Kommissionen ikke desto mindre visse supplerende oplysninger om beregningerne af dumping og skade, jf. betragtning 77 og 178.
In any event, an additional element for safeguarding the rights of defence of interested parties is the possibility of having recourse to the Hearing Officer in Trade Proceedings under Article 15 of Decision of the President of the European Commission of 29 February 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officer in certain trade proceedings.