natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
More specifically, regarding criterion 1 the exporting producers concerned failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence concerning domestic sales, evidence concerning the remuneration of the employees, etc.) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Točnije, u pogledu kriterija 1. predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu dostavili bitne i potpune podatke (npr. dokaze o strukturi i kapitalu društva, dokaze o domaćoj prodaji, dokaze o naknadi za zaposlenike itd.) kako bi dokazali da se njihove poslovne odluke donose kao odgovor na tržišne signale, a bez značajnog uplitanja države.
Regarding criterion 3, the exporting producers concerned equally failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the assets owned by the company and the land use right) to demonstrate that no distortions were carried over from the non-market economy system.
U pogledu kriterija 3. predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu dostavili bitne i potpune podatke (npr. dokaze o imovini u vlasništvu društva i pravu na korištenje zemljišta) kako bi dokazali da nikakvi poremećaji nisu preneseni iz sustava bez tržišnoga gospodarstva.
In addition, as concerns criterion 2 (Accounting), four companies (Companies A, I, K, M) did not meet this criterion as they did not submit a clear set of basic accounting records.
Osim toga, u pogledu kriterija 2. (računovodstvo) četiri društva (društva A, I, K i M) nisu ispunila taj kriterij jer nisu dostavila transparentan sustav osnovnih računovodstvenih podataka.
For the remaining nine companies (Companies B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, L) criterion 2 (Accounting) was not assessed for the reason set out in recital 32.
Za preostalih devet društava (društva B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J i L) kriterij 2. (računovodstvo) nije se ocjenjivao zbog razloga utvrđenog u uvodnoj izjavi 32.
For the same reason set out in recital 22, for none of the exporting producers concerned criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) were assessed.
Zbog istog razloga utvrđenog u uvodnoj izjavi 22. ni za jednog od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nisu ocijenjeni kriteriji 4. (zakoni o stečaju i imovini) i 5. (konverzija valuta).
On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that none of the 13 Chinese exporting producers concerned should be granted MET and informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly, which were invited to provide comments.
Na temelju prethodno navedenog, Komisija je zaključila da se nijednom od trinaest predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika ne bi trebao odobriti MET te je o tome obavijestila predmetne proizvođače izvoznike, koje je pozvala da dostave primjedbe.
No comments were received from any of the 13 Chinese exporting producers concerned.
Nijedna primjedba nije primljena ni od jednog od trinaest predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika.
Therefore, none of the 13 Chinese exporting producers concerned fulfilled all the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and MET is, as a result, denied for all of them.
Stoga nijedan od trinaest predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika nije ispunio sve uvjete određene člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) Osnovne uredbe, zbog čega se nijednom od njih ne odobrava MET.
It is recalled that the Court of Justice held that if the Union Institutions found that the market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned, they ought to have benefited from the same rate as the company in the sample that was granted MET.
Podsjeća se da je Sud smatrao da su predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, da su institucije Unije utvrdile da za njih prevladavaju uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva, trebali ostvarivati korist od iste stope kao trgovačko društvo u uzorku kojem je odobren MET.
However, since MET is denied for all exporting producers concerned as a result of the findings in the resumed investigation, none of the exporting producers concerned should benefit from the individual duty rate of the sampled company that was granted MET.
Međutim, s obzirom na to da MET nije odobren nijednom od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika kao posljedica nalaza u nastavljenom ispitnom postupku, nijedan od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika ne bi trebao ostvarivati korist od pojedinačne stope pristojbe trgovačkog društva u uzorku kojem je odobren MET.
Assessment of the IT claims
Ocjena zahtjeva za IT
Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, where Article 2(7)(a) of the same regulation applies, an individual duty shall however be specified for the exporters which can demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene, ako se primjenjuje članak 2. stavak 7. točka (a) te uredbe, odredit će se pojedinačna pristojba za izvoznike koji mogu dokazati da ispunjuju sve kriterije iz članka 9. stavka 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene.
As mentioned in recital 31 it is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT under Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 31., nužno je istaknuti da je teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji želi zahtijevati IT na temelju članka 9. stavka 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
Stoga se člankom 9. stavkom 5. prvim podstavkom određuje da zahtjev mora biti propisno obrazložen.
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union institutions to prove that the exporter does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
U skladu s tim institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da izvoznik ne zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
On the contrary, it is for the Union institutions to assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporter concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment are fulfilled in order to grant IT.
Naprotiv, institucije Unije trebaju ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni izvoznik dostatni da se pokaže da su kriteriji određeni člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene ispunjeni kako bi se tom izvozniku odobrio IT.
In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, exporters should demonstrate on the basis of a properly substantiated claim that all five criteria listed in this Article are met so that they can be granted IT.
U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene izvoznici bi trebali na temelju propisno obrazloženog zahtjeva dokazati da je ispunjeno svih pet kriterija iz tog članka kako bi im se odobrio IT.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
Stoga je Komisija smatrala da se zahtjev za IT može odbiti i ako nije ispunjen najmanje jedan kriterij.
The five criteria are the following:
Riječ je o sljedećih pet kriterija:
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
u slučaju poduzeća ili zajedničkih pothvata koji su u cijelosti ili djelomično u stranom vlasništvu izvoznici mogu slobodno repatrirati kapital i dobit;
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;
izvozne cijene i količine, kao i uvjeti i odredbe prodaje utvrđuju se slobodno;
the majority of the shares belong to private persons; state officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;
većina dionica pripada pojedincima; državni dužnosnici u upravnom odboru ili koji su na ključnim upravljačkim pozicijama su u manjini ili moraju dokazati da je ipak društvo dovoljno nezavisno od uplitanja države;
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
konverzije deviza obavljaju se po tržišnoj vrijednosti; i
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
uplitanje države ne omogućava izbjegavanje mjera ako se pojedinačnim izvoznicima odrede različite stope pristojba.
All 13 Chinese exporting producers that requested MET also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Svih trinaest kineskih proizvođača izvoznika koji su zatražili MET zatražili su i IT za slučaj da im se ne odobri MET.
The majority of exporting producers concerned (Companies A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) were not able to demonstrate that they met criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined).
Većina predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika (društva A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L i M) nije mogla dokazati da ispunjava kriterij 2. (slobodno utvrđivanje izvozne prodaje i izvoznih cijena).
More specifically, for certain exporting producers concerned (Companies E, G, H, J, K, L) the Articles of Association stipulated a limitation in output and therefore they failed to demonstrate that business decisions, such as export quantities are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand.
Točnije, za određene predmetne proizvođače izvoznike (društva E, G, H, J, K, L) statutom je utvrđeno ograničenje proizvodnje te oni stoga nisu mogli dokazati da se poslovne odluke, kao što je odluka o količini izvoza, donose kao odgovor na tržišne signale i odražavaju ponudu i potražnju.
Others (Companies A, B, M) did not sell on the domestic market and provided no further explanations so that they have not demonstrated that this was not due to State intervention.
Drugi (društva A, B i M) nisu prodavali na domaćem tržištu i nisu dostavili dodatna objašnjenja, tako da nisu dokazali da to nije bio rezultat državne intervencije.
The remaining exporting producers (Companies C, D, I) failed to provide essential and complete documentation and therefore they have not demonstrated that criterion 2 was met.
Preostali proizvođači izvoznici (društva C, D i I) nisu dostavili bitnu i potpunu dokumentaciju te stoga nisu dokazali da je ispunjen kriterij 2.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), 10 Chinese exporting producers (Companies B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M) failed to submit essential and complete documentation (in particular on how the company acquired the assets, who owned the assets and the land use rights, etc.) and did therefore not demonstrate that there was no State interference and they therefore failed to demonstrate that they met this criterion.
U pogledu kriterija 3. (društvo – ključna uprava i dionice – dovoljno je nezavisno od uplitanja države) deset kineskih proizvođača izvoznika (društva B, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L i M) nije dostavilo bitnu i potpunu dokumentaciju (posebice u pogledu toga kako je društvo steklo imovinu, tko je vlasnik imovine i prava na korištenje zemljišta itd.) i sukladno tome nisu dokazali da nema uplitanja države te stoga nisu uspjeli dokazati da ispunjuju taj kriterij.
In addition, one exporting producer (Company C) failed to meet criterion 1 (Capital repatriation) since the investigation revealed limitations for capital repatriation due to State interference.
Osim toga, jedan proizvođač izvoznik (društvo C) nije ispunio kriterij 1. (repatrijacija kapitala) jer je ispitni postupak pokazao ograničenja u pogledu repatrijacije kapitala koja su bila rezultat uplitanja države.
Furthermore, the same exporting producer (Company C) failed to demonstrate that it met criterion 5 (No state interference to permit circumvention of measures) since no information was provided concerning two related companies located in China and therefore essential documentation was missing to demonstrate that this criterion was met.
Nadalje, isti taj proizvođač izvoznik (društvo C) nije uspio dokazati da ispunjava kriterij 5. (nema uplitanja države koje bi omogućavalo izbjegavanje mjera) jer nisu dostavljeni podaci u pogledu dva povezana društva koja se nalaze u Kini i stoga je nedostajala osnovna dokumentacija kojom bi se dokazalo da je taj kriterij ispunjen.
Therefore, none of the 13 Chinese exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was, as a result, denied to all of them.
Stoga nijedan od trinaest predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika nije ispunio uvjete određene člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene, zbog čega se nijednom od njih ne odobrava IT.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to the PRC should therefore be imposed for these exporting producers for the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Stoga je za te proizvođače izvoznike potrebno uvesti preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na NRK za razdoblje primjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006.
On the basis of the illegality identified by the Court, there is no legal ground for completely exempting the products produced by the exporting producers concerned from paying any anti-dumping duty.
Na temelju nezakonitosti koju je Sud utvrdio ne postoji pravni temelj za potpuno izuzeće proizvoda koje proizvode predmetni proizvođači izvoznici od plaćanja ikakve antidampinške pristojbe.
A new act remedying the illegality identified by the Court therefore only needs to reassess the applicable anti-dumping duty rate, and not the measures themselves.
Novim aktom kojim bi se otklonila nezakonitost koju je Sud utvrdio stoga je potrebno ponovno ocijeniti jedino primjenjivu stopu antidampinške pristojbe, a ne i same mjere.
Since it is concluded that the residual duty should be reimposed in respect of the exporting producers concerned at the same rate as originally imposed by the contested Regulation and Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Budući da je zaključeno da je potrebno ponovno uvesti preostalu pristojbu u pogledu predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika po istoj stopi koja je početno uvedena Spornom uredbom i Uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009, nisu potrebne izmjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 388/2008.
That Regulation remains valid.
Ta Uredba ostaje valjana.
C. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
C. PRIMJEDBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANA NAKON OBJAVE
The above findings and conclusions were disclosed to the interested parties which were given a time period to comment.
Navedeni nalazi i zaključci objavljeni su zainteresiranim stranama, kojima je omogućen vremenski rok za slanje primjedbi.
FESI representing importers including Puma and Timberland, Clark, another importer and one exporting producer, which MET/IT claim had not been subject to the current implementation came forward and provided comments.
Svoje su primjedbe dostavili FESI, koji zastupa uvoznike uključujući društva Puma, Timberland i Clark, te još jedan uvoznik i jedan proizvođač izvoznik, na čiji se zahtjev za MET/IT trenutačna provedba ne odnosi.
Alleged irregularities in the procedure
Navodne nepravilnosti u postupku
FESI and one importer claimed that there were a number of procedural errors in the current implementation.
FESI i jedan uvoznik tvrdili su da u trenutačnoj provedbi postoji niz postupovnih pogrešaka.
They pointed to the fact that the MET claims of the Chinese exporting producers concerned were already examined and disclosed prior to the judgement of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, i.e. on 3 December 2015, as well as the Commission's intention to reimpose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear of 16,5 %.
Istakli su da su zahtjevi za MET predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika pregledani i objavljeni prije presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE, tj. 3. prosinca 2015., kao i namjera Komisije da ponovno uvede konačne antidampinške pristojbe od 16,5 % na obuću.
These assessments would therefore have been carried out without legal basis and were pre-empting the up-coming judgment of the Court of Justice.
Ove su ocjene stoga bile izvršene bez pravnog temelja te su prejudicirale predstojeću presudu Suda.
The Commission does not agree with the above statement as it only prepared the implementation of a possible future judgment.
Komisija se ne slaže sa navedenim navodima, budući da je samo pripremila provedbu moguće buduće presude.
Such preparation was to ensure sound administration, for the following reasons: First, it is uncontested that the Commission ought to have examined the MET/IT requests.
Ta priprema služi da bi se osiguralo dobro upravljanje iz sljedećih razloga: kao prvo, nesporno je da je Komisija trebala ispitati zahtjeve za MET/IT.
The only issue that was at stake in the Court proceedings still pending at that time was whether an unrelated importer such as Clark, Puma and Timberland can rely on that illegality.
U postupku pred Sudom koji je tada još bio u tijeku jedino je bitno mogu li se nepovezani uvoznici kao što su Clark, Puma i Timberland osloniti na tu nezakonitost.
As a result of that yes/no binary choice, the Commission could exceptionally perfectly well prepare for the event of a negative judgment on this question.
Kao rezultat tog izbora s dva moguća odgovora, odnosno da ili ne, Komisija se može iznimno dobro pripremiti za slučaj negativne presude u pogledu tog pitanja.
Second, swift implementation was necessary in order to enable national customs authorities to deal quickly with pending requests for reimbursement, and to provide legal certainty for all operators.
Kao drugo, potrebna je brza provedba kako bi se nacionalnim carinskim tijelima omogućila brza obrada zahtjeva za povrat koji su im podneseni te kako bi se svim subjektima pružila pravna sigurnost.
Any influence on the Court's judgment was excluded, as this judgment concerned a different subject-matter (namely whether importers can rely on the right to have MET/IT claims assessed vested in exporting producers).
Isključen je svaki utjecaj na presudu Suda jer se ta presuda odnosi na drugačiji predmet (odnosno mogu li se uvoznici oslanjati na pravo na ocjenu zahtjeva za MET/IT koje je dano proizvođačima izvoznicima).
These parties further claimed that the Notice on the implementation of the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited and Puma SE later published on 17 March 2016 could not cure above procedural errors because it did not provide meaningful opportunity for the interested parties to exercise their rights of defence.
Nadalje, navedene su stranke tvrdile da se Obaviješću o provedbi presude u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited i Puma SE koja je kasnije objavljena 17. ožujka 2016. nije moglo ispraviti navedene postupovne pogreške jer njome zainteresiranim stranama nije pružena valjana mogućnost da iskoriste svoje pravo na obranu.
Several parties moreover claimed that they should have been granted access to the full investigation file of the original investigation and that the names of the relevant exporting producers should not have been anonymised in the disclosure documents.
Usto, nekoliko je stranaka tvrdilo da im je trebao biti omogućen pristup cjelovitom spisu iz početnog ispitnog postupka te da nazivi relevantnih proizvođača izvoznika nisu trebali biti anonimizirani u dokumentima objave.
In conclusions, these parties argued that on the basis of the above procedural mistakes, the Commission violated the basic legal framework of the EU and thus exercised an abuse of its powers.
U zaključku su te strane tvrdile, na temelju navedenih postupovnih pogrešaka, da je Komisija povrijedila osnovni pravni okvir EU-a i stoga zloupotrijebila svoje ovlasti.
Another party questioned the relationship between the disclosure mentioned in recital 55 and the latest disclosure sent on 20 May 2016 and requested clarification on this matter.
Jedna druga stranka dovela je u pitanje vezu između objave koja je navedena u uvodnoj izjavi 55. i kasnije objave koja je poslana 20. svibnja 2016. te zatražila objašnjenje u pogledu toga.
The Notice on the implementation of the judgment was published in order to increase transparency, in line with the Commission's policy on transparency in trade defence investigations and at the request of the Hearing Officer, following a hearing with one of the parties raising the issue.
Obavijest o provedbi presude objavljena je radi povećanja transparentnosti, u skladu s politikom Komisije o transparentnosti u ispitnim postupcima u pogledu trgovinske zaštite i na zahtjev Službenika ovlaštenog za saslušanja, nakon saslušanja one stranke koja skrenula pažnju na to pitanje.
The Commission continues to take the view that that publication was not, strictly speaking, legally required.
Komisija i dalje drži da objava nije, strogo uzevši, zakonski obvezna.
In any event, even if it was necessary, quod non, to ensure due process and the right to be heard, those requirements have been fulfilled by its publication and the fact of giving all parties the possibility to comment.
U svakom slučaju, čak i da je bilo nužno, što ovdje nije slučaj, osigurati propisani postupak i pravo na saslušanje, ti su uvjeti ispunjeni njenom objavom i činjenicom da je svim strankama omogućena dostava primjedbi.
Access to the full file of the original investigation has been granted, even though the Commission fails to see how any other information than the MET/IT claims of the exporting producers concerned could possibly be relevant for the present proceedings.
Dopušten je pristup cjelovitom spisu početnog ispitnog postupka, iako Komisija ne vidjeti koji drugi podaci, osim zahtjeva za MET/IT predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika, mogu biti relevantni za trenutačni postupak.
The anonymisation of the names of the exporting producers has been necessary in order to ensure that their business-confidential data is protected; however, at their request, interested parties who imported were informed which of the importers were their importers.
Anonimiziranje naziva proizvođača izvoznika potrebno je kako bi se osigurala zaštita njihovih povjerljivih poslovnih podataka; međutim, zainteresirane strane uvoznici obaviješteni su, na vlastiti zahtjev, koji su uvoznici njihovi.
The second disclosure had become necessary because the regulation now also covers IT claims, which were not assessed initially.
Druga je objava bila nužna jer današnji propisi obuhvaćaju i zahtjeve za IT, koji nisi prvotno ocjenjivani.
For those reasons, any claims regarding procedural irregularities have to be rejected.
Zbog toga se odbijaju svi zahtjevi koji se odnose na postupovne nepravilnosti.
Legal basis for the resumption of the anti-dumping proceeding
Pravna osnova za nastavak antidampinškog postupka
Several interested parties claimed that there was no legal basis for the current implementation.
Nekoliko je zainteresiranih strana tvrdilo da nema pravne osnove za trenutačnu provedbu. Posebice su tvrdile da čl. 266.
In particular they claimed that Article 266 TFEU is not applicable on the grounds that the definitive measures on footwear expired on 31 March 2011 and that there are therefore no continued effects ensuing from the illegality of these measures.
UFEU-a nije primjenjiv s obzirom na to da su konačne mjere o obući istekle 31. ožujka 2011. te da stoga nema nastavnih učinaka koji proizlaze iz nezakonitosti tih mjera. Stranke su utvrdile da čl. 266.
The parties argued that Article 266 TFEU is not intended to correct retroactively illegalities to expired measures.
UFEU-a nije namijenjen retroaktivnom ispravljanju nezakonitosti u pogledu proteklih mjera. Navedeno stajalište potvrđuju čl.
This view would be reinforced by Articles 263 and 265 TFEU which set time limits for bringing actions against illegal acts of and failure to act on the part of the EU institutions.
i 265. UFEU-a kojima se propisuju vremenski rokovi za poduzimanje mjera protiv nezakonitih radnji i nepoduzimanja radnji od strane institucija EU-a.