natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The current approach does not have any precedents and the Commission did also not provide any reasoning or prior jurisprudence which would support its interpretation of Article 266 TFEU.
Trenutačni pristup nema presedana, a Komisija nije pružila obrazloženje niti prethodnu sudsku praksu koja bi potvrdila njezino tumačenje čl. 266. UFEU-a.
The parties argued further that in this case the investigation cannot be resumed at the very point where the illegality occurred under Article 266 TFEU because the Court of Justice did not merely establish a lack of reasoning but the illegality concerned a core legal provision of the basic Regulation affecting the entire assessment of dumping related to the Chinese exporting producers concerned.
Stranke su, nadalje, utvrdile da se ispitni postupak u ovom slučaju ne može nastaviti upravo u onom dijelu u kojem je došlo do nezakonitosti prema čl. 266. UFEU-a jer Sud nije samo ustanovio nedostatak obrazloženja, već se nezakonitost odnosila na ključnu zakonsku odredbu Osnovne uredbe koja se odnosi na čitavu ocjenu dampinga u vezi s predmetnim kineskim proizvođačima izvoznicima.
The parties claimed further that the retro-active correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Stranke su još tvrdile da se retroaktivnim ispravkom isteklih mjera krši načelo zaštite legitimnih očekivanja.
They argued that first, parties would have received assurance that the measures expired on 31 March 2011 and that given the time elapsed since the original investigation parties were entitled to have justified expectations that the original investigation will not be resumed or reopened.
Kao prvo, tvrdile su da su strane dobile jamstvo da mjere istječu 31. ožujka 2011. i da su strane, s obzirom na vrijeme proteklo od početnog ispitnog postupka, imale pravo opravdano očekivati da se početni ispitni postupak neće nastaviti niti ponovno pokrenuti.
Secondly, the very fact that during the original investigation MET claims were not investigated within the 3 months deadline provided legal certainty to the Chinese exporting producers that their MET claims will indeed not be reviewed.
Kao drugo, sama je činjenica da zahtjevi za MET tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka nisu ispitani u roku od 3 mjeseca pružala pravnu sigurnost kineskim proizvođačima izvoznicima da njihovi zahtjevi za MET neće biti revidirani.
In conclusion, the parties claimed that given the long time periods involved, the resumption of the investigation violated the universal principle of prescription or limitation which applied in all legal contexts.
U zaključku su stranke tvrdile da se, s obzirom na duge vremenske rokove, nastavkom ispitnog postupka krši jedinstveno načelo preskripcije ili zastare koje se primjenjuje u svim pravnim kontekstima.
Several interested parties argued that neither Article 266 TFEU, nor the basic Regulation permit the retroactive reimposition of the definitive duty of 16,5 % to imports of the Chinese exporting producers concerned.
Nekoliko zainteresiranih strana utvrdilo je da se ni čl. 266. UFEU-a ni Osnovnom uredbom ne dopušta retroaktivno ponovno uvođenje konačne pristojbe od 16,5 % na uvoz predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika.
As regards the claim that the measures in question expired on 31 March 2011, the Commission fails to see why the expiry of the measure would be of any relevance for the possibility for the Commission to adopt a new act to replace the annulled act.
U pogledu tvrdnje da su mjere o kojima je riječ istekle 31. ožujka 2011. Komisija ne vidjeti zašto bi istek mjere bio bitan za mogućnost da Komisija donese novi akt kojim bi se zamijenilo poništeni akt.
The judgment annulling the initial act reopens, according to the case-law, the administrative procedure, which can be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Presuda kojom se poništava početni akt, u skladu sa sudskom praksom, ponovno pokreće administrativni postupak koji se može nastaviti od trenutka u kojem je nastupila nepravilnost.
The anti-dumping proceedings are hence, as a result of the annulment of the act concluding the proceedings, still open.
Antidampinški postupci stoga su i dalje otvoreni kao posljedica poništenja akta kojim se ti postupci zaključuju.
The Commission is under an obligation to close those proceedings, as the basic Regulation provides that an investigation has to be closed by an act of the Commission.
Komisija ima obvezu zaključiti te postupke jer se u Osnovnoj uredbi navodi da se ispitni postupak mora zaključiti aktom Komisije.
As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 13 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, which takes over the text of Article 10(1) of the ADA, stipulates that provisional measures and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the decision taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enters into force.
U pogledu tvrdnje o retroaktivnosti koja se temelji na članku 13. Osnovne uredbe i članku 10. Sporazuma WTO-a o antidampingu („ADA”), člankom 13. stavkom 1. Osnovne uredbe, za koji je preuzet tekst članka 10. stavka 1. ADA-e, propisuje se da se privremene mjere i konačne antidampinške pristojbe primjenjuju samo na proizvode koji ulaze u slobodan promet nakon stupanja na snagu odluke donesene u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 1. ili člankom 9. stavkom 4. Osnovne uredbe, ovisno o slučaju.
In the present case, the anti-dumping duties in question are only applied to products which entered into free circulation after the provisional and the contested (definitive) Regulation taken pursuant to 7(1) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation respectively had entered into force.
U ovom slučaju antidampinške pristojbe o kojima je riječ primjenjuju se samo na proizvode koji su ušli u slobodan promet nakon stupanja na snagu privremene i Sporne (konačne) uredbe donesene u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 1., odnosno člankom 9. stavkom 4. Osnovne uredbe.
Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.
Međutim, retroaktivnost u smislu članka 10. stavka 1. Osnovne uredbe odnosi se samo na situaciju u kojoj je roba stavljena u slobodni promet prije uvođenja mjera, kao što se može vidjeti iz samog teksta te odredbe te iz izuzeća predviđenog u članku 10. stavku 4. Osnovne uredbe.
The Commission also observes that there is no retroactivity and violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Komisija primjećuje i da u ovom predmetu nije došlo do retroaktivnosti te povrede pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja.
As to retroactivity, the case-law of the Court distinguishes, when assessing whether a measure is retroactive, between the application of a new rule to a situation that has become definitive (also referred to as an existing or definitively established legal situation), and a situation that started before the entry into force of the new rule, but which is not yet definitive (also referred to as a temporary situation).
U pogledu retroaktivnosti, sudska praksa Suda, pri ocjeni je li mjera retroaktivna, razlikuje primjenu novog pravila na situaciju koja je postala konačna (koja se naziva i postojećom ili konačno uspostavljenom pravnom situacijom) od situacije koja je započela prije nego što je novo pravilo stupilo na snagu, ali koja još nije konačna (koja se naziva i privremenom situacijom).
In the present case, the situation of the imports of the products concerned that occurred during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 has not yet become definitive, because, as a result of the annulment of the contested Regulation, the anti-dumping duty applicable to them has not yet been definitively established.
U ovom slučaju, situacija uvoza predmetnog proizvoda koji se dogodio tijekom razdoblja primjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 još nije postala konačna budući da, kao posljedica poništenja Sporne uredbe, antidampinška pristojba koja se na njega primjenjuje još nije konačno utvrđena.
At the same time, importers of footwear were warned that such a duty may be imposed by the publication of the notice of initiation and the provisional Regulation.
U isto su vrijeme uvoznici obuće objavom obavijesti o pokretanju postupka i Privremene uredbe upozoreni da bi takva pristojba mogla biti uvedena.
It is standing case-law of the Union Courts that operators cannot acquire legitimate expectations until the Institutions have adopted an act closing the administrative procedure, which has become definitive.
Uobičajena je sudska praksa sudova Unije da subjekti ne mogu steći legitimna očekivanja sve dok institucije ne donesu akt kojim se zaključuje administrativni postupak koji je postao konačan.
The present regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is on-going: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities.
Ova Uredba čini neposrednu primjenu situacije koja je u tijeku na buduće učinke: nacionalna carinska tijela naplatila su pristojbe na obuću.
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not had been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an on-going situation.
Kao rezultat zahtjeva za povrat, o kojima nije donesena konačna odluka, one čine situaciju koja je u tijeku.
The present regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an on-going situation.
Ovom se Uredbom utvrđuje stopa pristojbe koja se primjenjuje na taj uvoz te se stoga njome uređuju budući učinci situacije koja je u tijeku.
In any event, even if there was retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would in any event be justified, for the following reason:
U svakom slučaju, čak i da je postojala retroaktivnost u smislu prava Unije, što nije, ta bi retroaktivnost u svakom slučaju bila opravdana zbog sljedećeg razloga:
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to the situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them.
Materijalno-pravne odredbe prava Unije mogu se primijeniti na situacije koje su postojale prije njihova stupanja na snagu ako iz njihovih uvjeta, ciljeva ili općeg programa jasno slijedi da im se mora dati taj učinak.
In particular, in case Case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA) it was held that: [A]lthough in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.
Posebno se u predmetu C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA) smatralo da: Iako, općenito, načelo pravne sigurnosti sprječava da neka mjera Zajednice ima učinak od trenutka prije njezine objave, iznimno može vrijediti suprotno ako je to nužno radi postizanja neke svrhe i ako su legitimna očekivanja uključenih strana ispoštovana na odgovarajući način.
In the present case the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
U ovom slučaju ta je svrha usklađivanje s obvezom Komisije na temelju članka 266. UFEU-a.
Since the Court only found an illegality with regards to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regards to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regards to the finding of dumping, injury and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
S obzirom na to da je Sud utvrdio nezakonitost jedino u pogledu utvrđivanja primjenjive stope pristojbe, ali ne i u pogledu uvođenja samih mjera (odnosno u pogledu utvrđivanja dampinga, štete i interesa Unije), predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu mogli legitimno očekivati da neće biti uvedene nikakve konačne antidampinške mjere.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Posljedično, za to se uvođenje, čak i da je retroaktivno, što ovdje nije slučaj, ne može smatrati da su njime prekršena legitimna očekivanja.
In addition, with regards to the protection of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations, it is first of all observed that according to the case-law, importers cannot claim the protection of legal certainty and legitimate expectations where they were alerted of an imminent change in the Union's commercial policy.
Osim toga, u pogledu zaštite pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja najprije se primjećuje da prema sudskoj praksi uvoznici ne mogu zahtijevati zaštitu pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja ako su bili upozoreni na neposrednu promjenu trgovinske politike Unije.
In the present case, importers were alerted by the publication of the notice of initiation and of the provisional Regulation in the Official Journal, which are both still part of the legal order of the Union, of the risk that the products produced by the exporting producers concerned may become subject to an anti-dumping duty.
U ovom su slučaju uvoznici objavom obavijesti o pokretanju postupka i Privremene uredbe u Službenom listu, koje su obje i dalje dio pravnog poretka Unije, upozoreni na rizik da se na proizvode koje proizvode predmetni proizvođači izvoznici može početi primjenjivati antidampinška pristojba.
The exporting producers concerned could therefore not rely on the general principles of the Union's law of protection of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
Predmetni proizvođači izvoznici stoga se nisu mogli osloniti na opća načela prava Unije o zaštiti pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja.
Rather, economic operators were fully aware, when importing footwear, that those imports were subject to a duty.
Naprotiv, gospodarski subjekti bili su pri uvozu obuće u potpunosti svjesni da taj uvoz podliježe pristojbi.
They took that duty into account when setting sales prices and assessing economic risks.
Uzeli su tu pristojbu u obzir pri određivanju prodajnih cijena i ocjeni gospodarskih rizika.
They therefore did not acquire legal certainty or legitimate expectations that the imports would be free of a duty, and usually passed on the duty to their customers.
Stoga nisu stekli pravnu sigurnost ili legitimna očekivanja da će uvoz biti oslobođen od pristojbe te su obično pristojbu prenijeli na svoje kupce.
It is therefore in the Union interest to set now the applicable duty rate, rather than providing a windfall gain to the importers concerned, which would be enriched without due cause.
Stoga je u interesu Unije sada odrediti primjenjivu stopu pristojbe, umjesto da se predmetnim uvoznicima, koji bi se neopravdano obogatili, omogući neočekivani dobitak.
There is hence neither violation of the principles of prescription, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, nor of the provisions of the basic Regulation and the ADA.
Stoga nije došlo do kršenja načela zastare, pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja, kao ni odredbi Osnovne uredbe i Sporazuma o antidampingu.
As regards the claim that the MET determination had to be completed within 3 months of the initiation, it is recalled that according to the case law, the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation does not contain any indication as regards the consequences of the Commission's failure to comply with the 3-month period.
U pogledu tvrdnje da je utvrđivanje MET-a trebalo biti dovršeno u roku od tri mjeseca od pokretanja postupka podsjeća se da prema sudskoj praksi članak 2. stavak 7. točka (c) drugi podstavak Osnovne uredbe ne sadržava nikakvu naznaku u pogledu posljedica propusta Komisije da se pridržava tog tromjesečnog razdoblja.
The General Court therefore takes the view that an MET decision at a later stage does not affect the validity of the Regulation imposing definitive measures as long as applicants have not proved that, if the Commission had not exceeded the 3-month period, the Council might have adopted a different regulation more favourable to their interests than the contested regulation.
Opći sud stoga smatra da kasnije donošenje odluke o MET-u ne utječe na valjanost Uredbe kojom se uvode konačne mjere dok kod podnositelji zahtjeva nisu dokazali da bi, da Komisija nije premašila razdoblje od tri mjeseca, Vijeće možda donijelo drugačiju uredbu koja bi bila povoljnija za njihove interese od sporne uredbe.
The Court has furthermore recognized that the Institutions may modify the MET assessment until the adoption of final measures.
Sud je, nadalje, utvrdio da institucije mogu promijeniti ocjenu MET-a sve do donošenja konačnih mjera.
The above case-law has not been overturned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
Prethodna sudska praksa nije izmijenjena presudama Brosmann i Aokang.
In the Brosmann and Aokang judgments, the Court relies on the obligation for the Commission to carry out the assessment in 3 months in order to show that the obligation of that assessment exists independently of whether the Commission applies sampling or not.
Sud se u presudama Brosmann i Aokang oslanja na obvezu Komisije da provede ocjenu u roku od tri mjeseca kako bi pokazao da obveza te ocjene postoji neovisno o tome primjenjuje li Komisija odabir uzorka ili ne.
The Court does not pronounce itself on the question what legal consequence it has if the Commission concludes the MET assessment at a later stage of the investigation.
Sud se ne izjašnjava u pogledu pitanja koje su pravne posljedice ako Komisija zaključi ocjenjivanje MET-a u kasnijoj fazi ispitnog postupka.
The Court only rules that the Institutions could not completely ignore MET claims, but had to assess them the latest when imposing definitive measures.
Sud samo presuđuje da institucije nisu mogle potpuno zanemariti zahtjeve za MET, nego su ih morale ocijeniti najkasnije pri uvođenju konačnih mjera.
The judgments confirm the case-law quoted in the preceding recital.
Presude potvrđuju sudsku praksu navedenu u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi.
In the present case, the exporting producers concerned have not shown that, had the Commission carried out the MET assessment within 3 months after the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure in 2005, the Council might have adopted a different regulation more favourable to their interests than the contested regulation.
U ovom slučaju, predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu pokazali da bi, da je Komisija ocjenu MET-a provela u roku od tri mjeseca nakon pokretanja antidampinškog postupka 2005. godine, Vijeće možda bilo donijelo drugačiju uredbu koja bi bila povoljnija za njihove interese od sporne uredbe.
The claim on time-bar for the assessment of the MET claim is therefore rejected.
Stoga se odbija tvrdnja o vremenskom ograničenju ocjene zahtjeva za MET.
It was also claimed that since the illegality occurred at the point of MET assessments, the Commission should have resumed the proceeding to the point prior to the imposition of provisional measures.
Također se tvrdilo da je Komisija trebala nastaviti postupak do uvođenja privremenih mjera jer je do nezakonitosti došlo u trenutku ocjena MET-a.
In that regard, the Commission observes that provisional measures are not a necessary step of the proceeding, but an autonomous act that ceases its effects with the adoption of definitive measures.
U tom pogledu Komisija primjećuje da privremene mjere nisu nužna faza postupka, nego autonoman čin čiji su učinci prestali donošenjem konačnih mjera.
The only essential procedural step prior to the adoption of definitive measures is the initiation.
Jedina nužna faza postupka prije donošenja konačnih mjera jest pokretanje postupka.
Therefore, that argument is inoperative.
Stoga argument nije valjan.
Some parties referring to the judgment of the General Court in case T-2/95, IPS v Council, pointed to the formal difference between an ‘investigation’ and a ‘proceeding’ and argued that once a proceeding is terminated, like in the current case, it cannot be resumed anymore.
Neke su od stranaka, pozivajući se na presudu Općeg suda u predmetu T-2/95, IPS protiv Vijeća, istakle formalne razlike između „ispitnog postupka” i „postupka” te tvrdile da se postupak po okončanju više ne može nastaviti, kao što je ovdje slučaj.
The Commission fails to see any material difference between the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘proceeding’.
Komisija ne vidjeti bitnu razliku između izraza „ispitni postupak” i „postupak”.
They are used in an interchangeable manner in the basic Regulation and in the case-law.
Oba se izraza koriste naizmjenično u Osnovnoj uredbi i sudskoj praksi.
In any event, the judgment in case T-2/95 has to be read in the light of the judgment on appeal in that case.
U svakom slučaju, presudu u predmetu T-2/95 potrebno je tumačiti kao presudu po žalbi u tom predmetu.
Several parties also claimed that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for a partial implementation of a judgment of the Court of Justice and in the current case the reversal of the burden of proof.
Nekoliko je stranaka također tvrdilo da se čl. 266.
Thus, they claimed that the Commission wrongly assessed only the MET/IT requests of those exporting producers that were suppliers of importers that filed reimbursements claims.
UFEU-a ne omogućava djelomična provedba presude Suda i prebacivanje tereta dokazivanja na drugu stranu u ovom slučaju. Stoga su tvrdile da je Komisija pogrešno ocijenila samo zahtjeve za MET/IT onih proizvođača izvoznika koji su bili dobavljači za uvoznike koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za naknadom.
These parties based their claim on the understanding that the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE is erga omnes and that it cannot be excluded that the results of the current assessment the MET/IT claims has also an impact on the residual duty which is applicable to all Chinese exporting producers.
Te su stranke temeljile svoju tvrdnju na shvaćanju da se učinak presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE odnosi na sve te da se ne može isključiti da rezultati trenutne ocjene zahtjeva za MET/IT također utječu na preostalu pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na sve kineske proizvođače izvoznike.
These parties therefore claimed that the Commission should have assessed all MET/IT claims that were provided during the original investigation.
Te su stranke, stoga, tvrdile da je Komisija trebala ocijeniti sve zahtjeve za MET/IT koji su dostavljeni tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
Moreover, these parties disagreed that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT arguing that producers had discharged this burden of proof in 2005 by filing the MET/IT requests during the original investigation.
Štoviše, stranke nisu suglasne s tim da teret dokazivanja počiva na proizvođaču koji podnosi zahtjev za MET/IT, tvrdeći da su proizvođači taj teret dokazivanja ispunili 2005. godine podnošenjem zahtjeva za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
They also disagreed that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE can be implemented by simply assessing the MET/IT requests submitted by the non-sampled exporting producers as the Court of Justice did not specifically outline that the invalidation found is indeed limited to this aspect.
Također nisu suglasni s tim da se presuda Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE može provesti samo ocjenom zahtjeva za MET/IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu u uzorku jer Sud nije izričito naglasio da je ustanovljeni prestanak valjanosti ograničen na ovaj aspekt.