natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Antidumpingproceduren vedrørende importen af visse [elektrolytkondensatorer] med oprindelse i Japan afsluttes.
The antidumping proceeding concerning imports of certain large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan is hereby terminated.
Den 27. november 1997 blev der i medfør af grundforordningens artikel 5 indledt yderligere en procedure vedrørende visse elektrolytkondensatorer med oprindelse i USA og Thailand.
A further proceeding concerning LAECs originating in the United States and Thailand was initiated on 27 November 1997 pursuant to Article 5 of the basic regulation.
Kommissionen indførte en midlertidig antidumpingtold på importen af disse elektrolytkondensatorer med oprindelse i USA og Thailand ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1845/98 af 27. august 1998.
The Commission imposed a provisional antidumping duty on imports of LAECs originating in the United States and in Thailand by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1845/98 of 27 August 1998.
Kommissionen foreslog derefter Rådet at indføre endelige antidumpingforanstaltninger på denne import.
The Commission then proposed to the Council the imposition of definitive antidumping measures on those imports.
Rådet vedtog imidlertid ikke forslaget inden for den frist, der er fastsat i grundforordningens artikel 6, stk. 9.
The Council did not adopt the proposal within the timelimit laid down by Article 6(9) of the basic regulation.
Heraf følger, at importen med oprindelse i USA og Thailand ikke blev gjort til genstand for endelige foranstaltninger, og at de midlertidige foranstaltninger, der trådte i kraft den 29. august 1998, udløb den 28. februar 1999.
Consequently, no definitive measures were imposed on imports from the United States and Thailand and the provisional measures, which entered into force on 29 August 1998, lapsed on 28 February 1999.
Den midlertidige antidumpingtold blev således aldrig endeligt opkrævet på denne import.
As a result, the provisional antidumping duties were never definitively recovered on those imports.
Rådet begrundede navnlig afslutningen af antidumpingprocedurerne i følgende betragtninger til den anfægtede forordning:
The Council gave its reasons for the termination of the antidumping proceedings in the contested regulation, in particular in the following paragraphs:
Den 21. maj 1999 tilsendte Kommissionen sagsøgeren en oplysningsskrivelse i grundforordningens artikel 20's forstand, hvori den fremlagde de vigtigste kendsgerninger og betragtninger, på grundlag af hvilke Kommissionen påtænkte at foreslå, at den fornyede undersøgelse af antidumpingforanstaltningernemod importen af visse elektrolytkondensatorer med oprindelse i Japan afsluttedes som følge af, at der ikke blev indført en endelig antidumpingtold på importen
On 21 May 1999, the Commission sent the applicant a disclosure document in accordance with Article 20 of the basic regulation, setting out the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to propose the termination of the review of antidumping measures applicable to imports of LAECs originating in Japan following the failure to impose definitive duties on imports of LAECs from the United States and Thailand.
Den nye undersøgelse vedrørende USA og Thailand og de to fornyede undersøgelser blev i vid udstrækning gennemført samtidig.
The new investigation concerning the United States of America and Thailand and the two present reviews were conducted, to a large extent, simultaneously.
Som ovenfor anført førte de fornyede undersøgelser
These conclusions call in principle for amending the definitive measures on imports from Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan.
den 4. december 1997 som den dato, hvorfra forordningen har tilbagevirkende kraft
regulation in so far as it does not state that the retroactive effect of the regulation is to apply from 4 December 1997 onwards.
Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at da der ikke gælder foranstaltningerover for USA og Thailand, vil en indførelse af foranstaltninger mod importerede varer med oprindelse i Japan, Republikken Korea og Taiwan som følge af nærværende undersøgelse være ensbetydende med forskelsbehandling af disse tre lande.
Therefore, it is concluded that, in the absence of measures on the United States of America and Thailand, the imposition of any measures on imports originating in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan as a result of the present investigation would be discriminatory towards these latter three countries.
Parterne er i den foreliggende sag enige om, at den fornyede undersøgelse af importen fra Japan og den oprindelige undersøgelse af importen fra USA og Thailand er reguleret i forskellige bestemmelser i grundforord n ingen, som medførte forskellige resultater for opkrævningen af antidumpingtold.
In this case, it is undisputed that the review concerning imports originating in Japan and the initial investigation on imports from the United States and Thailand were governed by different provisions of the basic regulation which had different consequences as regards the collection of the antidumping duties.
En japansk eksporterende producent krævede, at proceduren vedrørende Japan skulle afsluttes med tilbagevirkende kraft fra datoen for indledningen af den fornyede undersøgelse, dvs. den 3. december 1997, idet importen med oprindelse i Japan stadig var genstand for foran s tal t ninger,mens den fornyede undersøgelse mod dette land foregik, og at den pågældende import derfor var udsat for forskelsbehandling i forhold til importen fra USA og Thailand, på hvilken der ikke blev opkrævet told.
One Japanese exporting producer claimed that the proceeding concerning Japan should be retroactively terminated as from the date of initiation of the present review, i.e. 3 December 1997, on the grounds that, while the review on Japan was pending, imports originating in that country were still subject to measures and were therefore discriminated against compared to the imports originating in the United States of America and Thailand, for which no duties were collected.
Antidumpingproceduren vedrørende importen fra USA og Thailand var nemlig i den oprindelige undersøgelsesfase og var således reguleret i grundforordningens artikel 5.
The antidumping proceedings relating to imports from the United States and Thailand were at the initial investigation stage and were therefore governed by Article 5 of the basic regulation.
Når en sådan procedure afsluttes i denne fase, uden at der indføres antidumpingforanstaltninger, opkræves der ingen endelig told, og midlertidig told opkræves ikke endeligt.
If such proceedings are terminated at that stage without the imposition of antidumping measures, no definitive duty is levied and the provisional duties are not collected definitively.
Antidumpingproceduren vedrørende importen fra Japan er reguleret i grundforordningens artikel 11, stk. 2.
The antidumping proceedings relating to imports from Japan were governed by Article 11(2) of the basic regulation.
Det følger af denne bestemmelse, at endelige antidumpingforanstaltninger udløber fem år efter indførelsen heraf, og at såfremt en undersøgelse genoptages ved foranstaltningernes udløb, forbliver foranstaltningerne i kraft, indtil resultatet af undersøgelsen foreligger.
That provision states that an antidumping measure expires five years after its imposition and that, in the case of a review of the expiry of a measure, the measure shall remain in force pending the outcome of such review.
Som anført i betragtning 132 var importen fra USA og Thailand imidlertid genstand for en undersøgelse fra december 1997 til den 28. februar 1999 ligesom importen med oprindelse i Japan.
However, as noted above in recital (132), between December 1997 and 28 February 1999 imports originating in the United States of America and Thailand were subject to investigation, as were the imports originating in Japan.
Det forhold, at der i den pågældende periode anvendtes foranstaltninger over for Japan, men ikke over for USA og Thailand, er blot udtryk for, at proceduren vedrørende USA og Thailand befandt sig i en anden fase, idet der var tale om den oprindelige undersøgelse, mens de gældende foranstaltninger vedrørende Japan var blevet indført ved forordning (EØF) nr. 3482/92.
The fact that measures were in force against Japan but not against the United States of America and Thailand over that period of time is merely a reflection of the fact that the proceeding concerning the United States of America and Thailand was at a different stage, the investigation being the initial investigation, whereas as regards Japan, the measures in force were those imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3482/92.
Under disse omstændigheder varder ikke tale om forskelsbehandling, fordi situationen var forskellig for de to procedurer.«
In these circumstances, no discrimination occurred because the situation of each proceeding was different.'
Sagsøgeren har i stævningen nedlagt påstand om annuUation af artikel 3, stk. 2, i den anfægtede forordning, for så vidt som den ikke fastsætter
In its application, the applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should annul the second paragraph of Article 3 of the contested
Selv om undersøgelserne er gennemført samtidig for ensartede produkter med oprindelse i forskellige lande for den samme undersøgelsesperiode, og selv om de har ledt til ensartede konklusioner vedrørende dumping, skade og Fællesskabets interesser, har den forskellige behandling af importen fra Japan og importen fra USA og Thailand — for så vidt angåropkrævningen af antidumpingtold—således hjemmel i grundforordningen og kan følgelig
as regards the collection of antidumping duties between imports from Japan and those from the United States and Thailand has a legislative basis in the basic regulation and therefore cannot be regarded as constituting an infringement of the principle of equal treatment (see, to that effect, Case C-323/88 Sermes [1990], paragraphs 45 to 48).
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
That letter was worded as follows:
»/) Rådet for Den Europæiske Union frifindes.
In the meantime, the aforementioned regulation was replaced by Regulation (EC) No 2820/98, Article 22 of which gives a similar basis for your complaint.
Sagsøgeren bærer sine egne omkostninger og betaler de af Rådet afholdte omkostninger.
After consideration of all legal aspects, it has been concluded that this complaint is not admissible.
»Annulationssøgsmål — den generelle ordning om toldpræferencer — afslag på en ansøgning om at iværksætte en undersøgelse — retsakt der kan anfægtes — urigtig fortolkning af forordning (EF) nr. 2820/98 — manglende begrundelse* (Femte Afdeling)
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 2 May 2000 the applicants brought the present action for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of 28 February 2000.
KENDELSER
Substance
Sag C-136/01 Ρ Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Sne / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Regler for institutionerne
In other words, the Community is entitled, but not obliged, to grant or to continue to grant the benefit of the GSP arrangements in those circumstances.
»Appel — erstatningssøgsmål—ansvarudenfor kontraktforhold — oversvømmelse tilstopning af en kollektor af spildevand —forældelsesfrist —forældelsen ikke afbrudt* (Anden Afdeling)
The Commission denies that it failed to consider the weight of the information supplied by the applicants. The Court none the less finds that, contrary to the Commission's statement in paragraph 15 of its defence that it had found the evidence 'insufficient, in particular in the light of the provisions of Article 27 of the GSP Regulation, to justify the initiation of a procedure which might eventually have led to the suspension of GSP preferences to India', it has not been proved that the information communicated by the applicants was in fact assessed by the Commission when adopting the contested decision.
Generaladvokat L.A. Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 10. september 2002.
It is to be noted that the benefit of the preferential arrangements provided for by the GSP Regulation may be withdrawn in any one or more of the six cases listed in Article 22(l)(a) to (f) of that regulation, either in full or in part.
Sag C-409/00 Kongeriget Spanien / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
The decision adopted by the Commission in the act under challenge was therefore based on its opinion that Articles 22 and 27 prevented it from opening an investigation and not on its view that the evidence supplied was insufficient
Præjudiciel — High Court of Justice (England & Wales), (¿ueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — gyldigheden af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2001/37/EF af 5. juni 2001 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes love og administrative bestemmelser om fremstilling præsentation og salg af tobaksvarer — valg af hjemmel —fortolkning af samme direktivs artikel 7 — anvendelse udelukkende på tobaksvarer, der markedsføres inden for Fællesskabet — anvendelse på tobaksvarer, der indpakkes inden for Fællesskabet og er bestemt til eksport til tredjelande AnnuUation af Kommissionens beslutningK(2000) 2465 endelig udg. om den støtte, som Spanien har ydet inden for rammerne af »Convenio de colaboración* af 26. februar 1997 mellem »Ministerio de Industria y Energía· og »Instituto de Crédito Oficial· om indkøb aferhvervskøretøjer erhvervskøretøjer
Moreover, because the circumstances referred to in Article 22(l)(e) of the GSP Regulation relate to manifest cases of unfair trading practices on the part of a beneficiary country, they are not necessarily confined to practices in the trade in particular goods but may involve more general practices in relation to that country's trade as a whole or to sectors of its industry. In such a case, goods subject to antidumping or antisubsidy measures already in existence would not be saved from the effects of a total withdrawal of the benefit of the preferential arrangements from a
Sag C-5/01 Kongeriget Belgien / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
country produces abnormal consequences which extend beyond the purely financial effects countered by the antisubsidy measures.
AnnuUation af Kommissionens beslutning K (2000)3563 endelig udg. af 15. november 2000 om statsstøtte ydet af den belgiske stat til fordel for stålværket Cockerill Sambre SA
beneficiary country by virtue solely of the fart that those measures satisfied the terms of Article 27 of the GSP Regulation and did not therefore fall within the exception to the general rule laid down in Article 27.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
In short, the adverb 'normally* used in Article 27 of the GSP Regulation covers at least two possible situations in which the benefit of the preferential arrangements may be withdrawn from goods which are the subject of antidumping or antisubsidy measures.
Præjudiciel — Oberster Gerichtshof—fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 84/450/EØF af 10. september 1984 om vildledende reklame og sammenlignende reklame, som ændret ved Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/55/EF af 6. oktober 1997 -afgrænsning af medlemsstaternes kompetence til at fastsætte en strengere beskyttelse undtagen for så vidt angår »sammenligningen· [artikel 3a, stk 1, litra a), og artikel 7, stk. 2] — sammenligning og »nedvurdering· [artikel 3a, stk. 1, litra e)J
In the second, withdrawal occurs when the manifest cases of unfair trading practices referred to in Article 22(l)(e), although relating to specific goods only, produce injurious effects which extend beyond the financial effects that can be offset by the imposition of antidumping or antisubsidy measures.
Generaladvokat A. Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. september 2002.
There is no necessary link between those goods which may lose the benefit of the preferential arrangements and the basis in law on which such withdrawal may be effected.
Sag C-352/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien
Accordingly, the use of the word 'normally* in Article 27 of the GSP Regulation serves to ensure that, although the existence of antidumping or antisubsidy measures is not a bar to the grant or continued grant of the benefit of preferential arrangements, the Community nevertheless retains the right to withdraw that benefit in appropriate cases on one or more of the grounds set out in Article 22(1) of the GSP Regulation.
Præjudiciel — Tribunal Central Administrativo — fortolkning af direktiv 77/388/EØF: Rådets sjette direktiv af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag — økonomisk virksomhed i artikel 4, stk 2's forstand -ydelse af lån til datterselskaber — arbejder udført af et selskab, der både er medlem af og administrator for et konsortium, som overstiger dets kvote og derfor skal betales af konsortiets øvrige medlemmer — bitransaktioner vedrørende finansielle spørgsmål i artikel 19, stk. 2's forstand — når provenuet fra disse finansielle transaktioner overstiger provenuet fra den virksomhed, der ifølge selskabets vedtægter er dets hovedformal
It is clear, therefore, that Article 27 of the GSP Regulation cannot be construed as precluding the Commission from requesting the opening of consultations under Article 23 of the GSP Regulation and then if necessary from opening an investigation under Article 25 into the existence of the case envisaged by Article 22(l)(e) merely because antisubsidy measures have been imposed on the goods forming the subject-matter of the complaint and the exception provided for by Article 27 is not applicable.
Traktatbrudssøgsmål — manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 98/8/EF af 16. februar 1998 om markedsføring af biocidholdige produkter
In that regard, no distinction of principle can be drawn between the various grounds for withdrawal provided for by Article 22(1) of the GSP Regulation, in particular between that relating to unfair trading practices on the part of a beneficiary country and the other cases contemplated by that provision.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
However, while that may be the 'normal' situation, it is not inconceivable that other cases may arise in which the grant of subsidies by the beneficiary
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
It follows that the Commission's interpretation of Article 27 of the GSP Regulation is incorrect and that the decision contained in its letter of 28 February 2000, being based on that interpretation, must be annulled.
Europæiske for Den
Court of Justice
Sag C-281/01 Kommissionen for De Fællesskaber / Rådet Europæiske Union
Case C-409/00 Kingdom of Spain ν Commission of the European Communities
Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2352/97 af 27. november 1997 om særlige foranstaltninger for indførsel af ris med oprindehe i oversøiske lande og territorier samt Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2494/97 af 12. december 1997 om udstedelse af importlicenser for ris henhørende KN-kode 1006 med oprindelse i de oversøiske lande og territorier som led i de særlige foranstaltninger, der blev indføn ved forordning (EF) nr. 2352/97 -spørgsmålet, om en sag anlagt af en territorial enhed i en medlemsstat kan antages til realitetsbehandling
Preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising as amended by Directive 97/55'/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 — Delimitation of the powers of the Member States to provided for more extensive protection, save in so far as concerns comparison (Article 3a(l(a)) and Article 7(2)) — Comparison and denigration (Article 3a(l)(e))
AnnuUation af afgørelse 2001/469: Rådets afgørelse 14. maj 2001 om indgåelse på Det Europæiske Fællesskabs vegne af aftalen mellem regeringen for Amerikas Forenede Stater og Det Europæiske Fællesskab om koordinering af programmer for energieffektivitetsmærkning af kontorudstyr — valg af hjemmel
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose, within the period prescribed therefor, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 12 September 2002.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 12 September 2002.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
2) order the Council to pay the costs.'
Sag C-131/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 12 September 2002.
Præjudiciel—Cour administrative d 'appel de Douai — fortolkning af EF-traktatens artikel 48 (efter ændring nu artikel 39 EF) og Rådets direktiv 89148/EØF af 21. december 1988 om indførelse af en generel ordning for gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser for erhvervskompetencegivende videregående uddannelser af mindst tre års varighed — optagelse i gruppen af hospitalsdirektører
Preliminary ruling — Cour Administrative dAppel de Douai (Administrative Court of Appeal, Douai), France — Interpretation of Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) —Admission to the hospital managers' corps
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 12 September 2002.
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 12. september 2002.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 12 September 2002.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Appeal against the judgment in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98, by which the Court of First Instance annulled:
Sag C-142/00 Ρ Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Nederlandse Antillen
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2352/97 of 27 November 1997 introducing specific measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories;
Appel af dom afsagt af Retten (Tredje Afdeling) den 10. februar 2000 i de forenede sager T-32/98 og T-41/98, hvorved Retten har annulleret
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of 12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences for rice falling within CN code 1006 and originating in the overseas countries and territories under the specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2352/97;
Præjudiciel — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) -fortolkning af artikel 26 i direktiv 77/388/EØF: Rådets sjette direktiv af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - Interpretation of Article 26 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment - Special scheme for travel agents - Travel agent giving a discount on the price of trips organised by a tour operator and paying the operator the entire price, therefore bearing the discount itself - Calculation of the basis of the tax payable by the operator for the
Sag C-324/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Belgien
Case C-324/01 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium