natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
Društva Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd i Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd te Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd („podnositelji zahtjeva”) osporila su Spornu uredbu pri Prvostupanjskom sudu (sada: Opći sud).
By judgements of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council [2010] ECR II-671 and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747, the General Court rejected those challenges.
Opći sud odbacio je ta osporavanja presudama od 4. ožujka 2010. u predmetu T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) i drugi protiv Vijeća [2010.] ECR II-671 te od 4. ožujka 2010. u spojenim predmetima T-407/06 i T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes i Wenzhou Taima Shoes protiv Vijeća [2010.] ECR II-747.
The applicants appealed those judgements.
Podnositelji zahtjeva uložili su žalbe na te presude.
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann et al and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
U svojim presudama od 2. veljače 2012. u predmetu C-249/10 P Brosmann i dr. i od 15. studenoga 2012. u predmetu C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd („presude Brosmann i Aokang”), Sud je ukinuo navedene presude.
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Smatrao je da je Opći sud povrijedio pravo tako što je smatrao da Komisija ne treba ispitati zahtjeve za tretman tržišnoga gospodarstva („MET”) prema članku 2. stavku 7. točkama (b) i (c) Osnovne uredbe primljene od trgovaca koji nisu u uzorku (točka 36. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točke 29. i 32. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
The Court of Justice then gave judgement itself in the matter.
Sud je zatim dao vlastitu presudu u pogledu ovog pitanja.
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Stoga je sud poništio Spornu uredbu u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na predmetne podnositelje zahtjeva.
In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
U listopadu 2013. Komisija je u obavijesti objavljenoj u Službenom listu Europske unije najavila da je odlučila nastaviti antidampinški postupak upravo u onom dijelu u kojem je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za podnositelje zahtjeva u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005. prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva te je zainteresirane strane pozvala da se jave i iznesu svoje stavove.
In March 2014, the Council, by Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Vijeće je u ožujku 2014. Provedbenom odlukom Vijeća 2014/149/EU odbilo prijedlog Komisije o donošenju Provedbene uredbe Vijeća o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe na određenu obuću s gornjištima od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine te koju su proizveli Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd i Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd i prekinulo postupak u pogledu tih proizvođača.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Vijeće je smatralo da uvoznici koji su kupili cipele od tih proizvođača izvoznika, kojima su nadležna nacionalna tijela nadoknadila relevantne carinske pristojbe na temelju članka 236. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2913/1992 od 12. listopada 1992. o Carinskom zakoniku Zajednice („Carinski zakonik Zajednice”), stekli legitimna očekivanja na temelju članka 1. stavka 4. Sporne uredbe, u skladu s kojim su odredbe Carinskog zakonika Zajednice, a posebno njegov članak 221., postale primjenjive na naplatu pristojbi.
Three importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe B.V.
Tri su uvoznika predmetnog proizvoda, C&J Clark International Ltd. („Clark”), Puma SE („Puma”) i Timberland Europe B.V.
(‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals 5 to 7 before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
(„Timberland”) („predmetni uvoznici”), osporavala antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama pozivajući se na nadležnost navedenu u uvodnim izjavama 5. do 7. pred svojim nacionalnim sudovima, koji su predmete uputili Sudu na odluku o prethodnom pitanju.
In the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Article 2(7)(b) and Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.
U spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE, Sud je uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i (EU) br. 1294/2009 proglasio nevaljanima u dijelu u kojem Europska komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i individualni tretman („IT”) koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici u NRK-u i Vijetnamu koji nisu uključeni u uzorak („presude”), što je protivno zahtjevima utvrđenima u članku 2. stavku 7. točki (b) i članku 9. stavku 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 384/96 od 22. prosinca 1995. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice.
Regarding the third case C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
U pogledu trećeg predmeta C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. protiv Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, Sud je 11. travnja 2016. odlučio obrisati taj predmet iz registra na zahtjev nacionalnog suda koji mu ga je uputio.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
U članku 266. UFEU-a propisuje se da institucije moraju poduzeti potrebne mjere kako bi postupile u skladu s presudama Suda.
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgement consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated.
U slučaju poništenja akta koji su donijele institucije u kontekstu administrativnog postupka, kao što je antidamping, usklađenost s presudom suda sastoji se od zamjene poništenog akta novim aktom, iz kojeg je izbačena nezakonitost koju je utvrdio Sud.
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
Prema sudskoj praksi Suda, postupak za zamjenu poništenog akta može se nastaviti upravo u onom dijelu u kojem je došlo do nezakonitosti.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
Pod time se posebno podrazumijeva da, ako se poništi akt kojim se zaključuje neki administrativni postupak, to poništenje ne utječe nužno na pripremne akte kao što je pokretanje antidampinškog postupka.
In a situation where a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Ako se uredba kojom se uvode konačne antidampinške mjere poništi, to znači da je nakon poništenja taj antidampinški postupak i dalje otvoren jer akt kojim se zaključuje taj antidampinški postupak više nije dio pravnog poretka Unije, osim ako je do nezakonitosti došlo u fazi pokretanja postupka.
Apart from the fact that the Institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
Osim činjenice da institucije nisu ispitale zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici u NRK-u i Vijetnamu koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, svi ostali nalazi iz uredbi Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i (EU) br. 1294/2009 i dalje su valjani.
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
U ovom je predmetu do nezakonitosti došlo nakon pokretanja postupka.
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period in the investigation that led to the imposition of definitive duties mentioned in recitals 1 and 2 (‘the original investigation’).
Stoga je Komisija odlučila nastaviti trenutačni antidampinški postupak koji je još bio otvoren nakon presude upravo u onom dijelu u kojem je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005., a to je bilo razdoblje ispitnog postupka u ispitnom postupku koji je rezultirao uvođenjem konačnih pristojbi iz uvodnih izjava 1. i 2. („početni ispitni postupak”), prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of the basic Regulation in its form prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe u obliku koji je imala prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe (EU) br. 765/2012 („Osnovna uredba prije izmjene”).
In a first step, for imports of Clark and Puma from the PRC, the Commission assessed all MET and IT claims provided by the non-sampled relevant exporting producers that submitted such claims in the original investigation.
U prvoj je fazi Komisija za uvoz društava Clark i Puma iz NRK-a ocijenila sve zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su dostavili relevantni proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, a koji su podnijeli takve zahtjeve u početnom ispitnom postupku.
Regarding imports of Timberland from PRC, there were two suppliers in the PRC identified in the case C-571/14.
U pogledu uvoza društva Timberland iz NRK-a, u predmetu C-571/14 utvrđena su dva dobavljača iz NRK-a.
One of those suppliers, Zhongshan Pou Yuen, was sampled in the original investigation and therefore no illegality occurred in the original investigation regarding this supplier.
Jedan od tih dobavljača, Zhongshan Pou Yuen, bio je uključen u uzorak u početnom ispitnom postupku i stoga u pogledu tog dobavljača nije došlo do nezakonitosti u početnom ispitnom postupku.
The second supplier, General Shoes Limited, was wrongly identified as a Chinese supplier whereas the company was established in Vietnam.
Za drugog dobavljača, General Shoes Limited, pogrešno se smatralo da je kineski dobavljač, a društvo zapravo ima poslovni nastan u Vijetnamu.
As mentioned in recital 150 below, this was later contested by the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) that claimed that General Shoes Ltd was in fact a Chinese supplier.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 150. u nastavku, to je naknadno osporila Europska federacija industrije sportske opreme („FESI”) koja je tvrdila da je društvo General Shoes Ltd ustvari kineski dobavljač.
For imports of Puma, Clark and Timberland from Vietnam, the Commission is currently also carrying out an assessment of MET and IT claims provided by the relevant non-sampled exporting producers that submitted such claims in the original investigation.
Za uvoz društava Puma, Clark i Timberland iz Vijetnama Komisija trenutačno isto tako provodi ocjenu zahtjeva za MET i IT koje su dostavili relevantni proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, a koji su podnijeli takve zahtjeve u početnom ispitnom postupku.
This investigation is still ongoing.
Ispitni je postupak i dalje u tijeku.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM THE PRC
B. PROVEDBA PRESUDA SUDA U SPOJENIM PREDMETIMA C-659/13 I C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ NRK-a
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment.
Komisija može ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ostavljajući pritom nepromijenjene dijelove ocjene na koje se presuda ne odnosi.
The present Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as certain exporting producers from the PRC are concerned.
Cilj je ove Uredbe ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji nisu u skladu s Osnovnom uredbom i koji su stoga doveli do njezina proglašenja nevaljanom u pogledu određenih proizvođača izvoznika iz NRK-a.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation, which were not declared invalid by the Court of Justice, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into the present Regulation.
Svi ostali nalazi utvrđeni u Spornoj uredbi koje Sud nije proglasio nevaljanima i dalje su važeći i ovime postaju dio ove Uredbe.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments.
Stoga se sljedeće uvodne izjave odnose samo na novu ocjenu koja je potrebna radi usklađivanja s presudama.
Should the analysis reveal that MET was to be granted to the Chinese exporting producer whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the two importers concerned, the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, namely 16,5 %, and the duty imposed on the only exporting company in the sample that has obtained MET, i.e. Golden Step, namely 9,7 %.
Ako se analizom pokaže da je MET bilo potrebno odobriti za kineskog proizvođača izvoznika na čiji se izvoz primjenjivala antidampinška pristojba koju je platio neki od ta dva predmetna uvoznika, povrat pristojbe bio bi ograničen na iznos koji odgovara razlici između plaćene pristojbe, odnosno 16,5 %, i pristojbe uvedene za jedino društvo izvoznika u uzorku koje je dobilo MET, tj. Golden Step, odnosno 9,7 %.
Should the analysis reveal that IT was to be granted to the Chinese exporting producer for which MET was rejected, but whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the two importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producer concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, and the individual duty calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Ako se analizom pokaže da je IT bilo potrebno dodijeliti kineskom proizvođaču izvozniku kojem je odbijen MET, no na čiji se izvoz primjenjivala antidampinška pristojba koju je platio neki od ta dva predmetna uvoznika, potrebno je predmetnom proizvođaču izvozniku dodijeliti pojedinačnu stopu pristojbe te bi povrat pristojbe bio ograničen na iznos koji odgovara razlici između plaćene pristojbe i pojedinačne pristojbe izračunane za predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika, ako je ima.
Conversely, should the analysis of such MET and IT claims reveal that both MET and IT should be rejected, no repayment of anti-dumping duties can be awarded.
S druge strane, ako se analizom tih zahtjeva za MET i IT pokaže da je MET i IT potrebno odbiti, ne može se odobriti povrat antidampinških pristojbi.
As explained in recital 12, the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, inter alia, with regard to exports of certain footwear from 13 Chinese exporting producers, i.e. Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd and Win Profile Industries Ltd (‘the exporting producers concerned’) to the Union and imported by Clark and Puma, in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by, inter alia, the exporting producers in the PRC.
Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 12., Sud je poništio Spornu uredbu i Uredbu (EU) br. 1294/2009, među ostalim, u pogledu izvoza određene obuće od strane trinaest kineskih proizvođača izvoznika, tj. društava Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co., Ltd., Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd., Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd., Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd., Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd. i Win Profile Industries Ltd, („predmetni proizvođači izvoznici”) u Uniju, a koju su uvezli Clark i Puma, u dijelu u kojem Komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su, među ostalima, podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici u NRK-u.
The Commission has therefore examined in a first step the MET and IT claims of these 13 exporting producers in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Komisija je stoga u prvoj fazi ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT tih trinaest proizvođača izvoznika kako bi utvrdila stopu pristojbe koja se primjenjuje na njihov izvoz.
The assessment showed that the information provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals 32 and following).
Ocjenom se pokazalo da dostavljeni podaci nisu bili dostatni kao dokaz da predmetni proizvođači izvoznici posluju u uvjetima tržišnoga gospodarstva niti da ispunjuju uvjete za pojedinačni tretman (vidjeti detaljno objašnjenje u nastavku u uvodnoj izjavi 32. i sljedećim uvodnim izjavama).
Assessment of the MET claims
Ocjena zahtjeva za MET
It is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Nužno je istaknuti da je teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji želi podnijeti zahtjev za MET na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) Osnovne uredbe.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) provides that the claim submitted by such a producer must contain sufficient evidence, as laid down in that provision, that the producer operates under market economy conditions.
U tu se svrhu člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom određuje da zahtjev koji dostavlja takav proizvođač mora sadržavati dostatne dokaze, kako je utvrđeno tom odredbom, da taj proizvođač posluje u uvjetima tržišnoga gospodarstva.
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
U skladu s tim institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da proizvođač 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 producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET and it is for the Union judicature to examine whether that assessment is vitiated by a manifest error (paragraph 32 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 24 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Suprotno tomu, institucije Unije trebaju ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni proizvođač dostatan dokaz da su kriteriji određeni člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom Osnovne uredbe ispunjeni kako bi se tom proizvođaču odobrio MET, a sud Unije treba ispitati je li ta ocjena iskrivljena zbog očite pogreške (točka 32. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 24. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
In accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation all five criteria listed in this Article should be met so that an exporting producer can be granted MET.
U skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) Osnovne uredbe potrebno je ispuniti svih pet kriterija navedenih u tom članku kako bi se proizvođaču izvozniku mogao odobriti MET.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Stoga je Komisija smatrala da se zahtjev za MET može odbiti i ako nije ispunjen najmanje jedan kriterij.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criteria 1 (Business decisions) and 3 (Assets and ‘Carry-over’).
Nijedan od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nije mogao dokazati da je ispunio kriterije 1. (poslovne odluke) i 3. (imovina i „prenošenje”).