natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Compare also the other cases for which retroactive application is permitted in Article 8 (breach of undertaking) and 14(5) (circumvention) of the basic Regulation, which also concern situations in which good were introduced into free circulation before the duties were imposed.
Usporedi i druge predmete za koje je retroaktivna primjena dopuštena u članku 8. (kršenje preuzete obveze) i članku 14. stavku 5. (izbjegavanje mjera) Osnovne uredbe, koji se odnose i na situacije u kojima je roba stavljena u slobodni promet prije uvođenja pristojbi.
ECR 1433, paragraph 8; Case 96/77 Bauche [1978] ECR 383, paragraph 48; Case 125/77 KoninklijkeScholten-Honig NV v Floofdproduktschaap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1978] ECR 1991, paragraph 37; Case 40/79 Ρ v Commission [1981] ECR 361, paragraph 12; Case T-404/05 Greece v Commission [2008] ECR II-272, paragraph 77; C-334/07 Ρ Commission v Freistaat Sachsen [2008] ECR 1-9465, paragraph 53.
ECR 1433, točka 8.; predmet 96/77 Bauche [1978.] ECR 383, točka 48.; predmet 125/77 KoninklijkeScholten-Honig NV protiv Floofdproduktschaap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1978.] ECR 1991, točka 37.; predmet 40/79 Ρ protiv Komisije [1981.] ECR 361, točka 12.; predmet T-404/05 Grčka protiv Komisije [2008.] ECR II-272, točka 77.; C-334/07 Ρ Komisija protiv Freistaat Sachsen [2008.] ECR 1-9465, točka 53.
Case T-176/01 Ferrière Nord ν Commission [2004] ECR 11-3931, paragraph 139; C-334/07 Ρ Commission v Freistaat Sachsen [2008] ECR 1-9465, paragraph 53.
Predmet T-176/01 Ferrière Nord protiv Komisije [2004.] ECR 11-3931, točka 139.; C-334/07 Ρ Komisija protiv Freistaat Sachsen [2008.] ECR 1-9465, točka 53.
Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51 to 54; Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01, P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA v Commission [2003] ECR II-2957, paragraph 205.
Predmet C-169/95 Španjolska protiv Komisije [1997.] ECR I-135, točke 51. do 54.; spojeni predmeti T-116/01 i T-118/01, P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA protiv Komisije [2003.] ECR II-2957, točka 205.
Case C-34/92 GruSa Fleisch v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1993] ECR 1-4147, paragraph 22.
Predmet C-34/92 GruSa Fleisch protiv Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1993.] ECR 1-4147, točka 22.
The same or similar wording can be found for example in Joined cases 212 to 217/80 Meridionale Industria Salumi α.δ.
Iste ili slične rečenice mogu se pronaći, primjerice, u spojenim predmetima 212 do 217/80 Meridionale Industria Salumi α.δ.
ECR 2735, paragraph 9 and 10; Case 21/81 Bout [1982] ECR 381, paragraph 13; Case T-42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v Commission [1998] ECR 11-401, paragraphs 53 and 55 to 56; Case T-180/01 Euroagri v Commission [2004] ECR II-369, paragraph 36.
ECR 2735, točke 9. i 10.; predmet 21/81 Bout [1982.] ECR 381, točka 13.; predmet T-42/96 Eyckeler & Malt protiv Komisije [1998.] ECR 11-401, točke 53. i 55. do 56.; predmet T-180/01 Euroagri protiv Komisije [2004.] ECR II-369, točka 36.
Case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA) [1990] ECR I-1, paragraph 13.
Predmet C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA) [1990.] ECR I-1, točka 13.
Case 245/81 Edeka v Germany [1982] ECR 2746, paragraph 27.
Predmet 245/81 Edeka protiv Njemačke [1982.] ECR 2746, točka 27.
Case T-299/05 Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision v Council [2009] ECR II-565, paragraph 116 to 146.
Predmet T-299/05 Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise i Shanghai Adeptech Precision protiv Vijeća [2009.] ECR II- 565, točke 116. do 146.
Case C-141/08 P, Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd v Council [2009] I-9147, paragraph 94 and following.
Predmet C-141/08 P, Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd. protiv Vijeća [2009.] I-9147, točka 94. i sljedeće točke.
Case T-320/13 Delsolar v Commission [2014] II-0000, paragraphs 40 to 67.
Predmet T-320/13 Delsolar protiv Komisije [2014.] II-0000, točke 40. do 67.
Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1).
Uredba (EU) br. 1168/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o izmjeni Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice (SL L 344, 14.12.2012., str. 1.).
OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10, recital 6.
SL L 201, 26.7.2001., str. 10. uvodna izjava br. 6.
OJ L 82, 20.3.2014, p. 27.
SL L 82, 20.3.2014., str. 27.
Case C-138/09 Todaro [2010] ECR I-4561.
Predmet C-138/09 Todaro [2010.] ECR I-4561.
Case T-167/94 Nölle v Council and Commission [1995] II-2589, paragraph 62 and 63.
Predmet T-167/94 Nölle protiv Vijeća i Komisije [1995.] II-2589, točke 62. i 63.
See for example Case T-221/05 Huvis v Council [2008] ECR II-124 and Case T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky v Council [2009] ECR II-303.
Vidjeti, primjerice, predmet T-221/05 Huvis protiv Vijeća [2008.] ECR II-124 i predmet T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky protiv Vijeća [2009.] ECR II-303.
For the sake of completeness, the following explanations appear useful: In case T-107/08 ENRC v Council, the General Court found that there was no dumping, or, at the very least, that the dumping margin established would have been lower than that calculated in the contested regulation, and therefore annulled the contested Council Regulation in its entirety (Case T-107/08 ENRC v Council [2011] ECR II-8051, paragraphs 67 to 70).
Radi potpunosti, sljedeća se objašnjenja čine korisnima: u predmetu T-107/08 ENRC protiv Vijeća Opći sud utvrdio je da nije bilo dampinga ili barem da bi utvrđena dampinška marža bila niža od marže izračunate u Spornoj uredbi te je stoga u cijelosti poništio spornu Uredbu Vijeća (predmet T-107/08 ENRC protiv Vijeća [2011.] ECR II-8051, točke 67. do 70.).
When the Commission applied the method prescribed by the General Court, it turned out that there was neither dumping nor injury.
Kad je Komisija primijenila metodu koju je propisao Opći sud, pokazalo se da nije bilo ni dampinga ni štete.
The Commission therefore refrained from formally resuming the investigation.
Komisija se stoga suzdržala od službenog nastavka ispitnog postupka.
In the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-351/04 Ikea (Case C-351/04 Ikea [2007] ECR I-7723), the Court of Justice had partially declared invalid the Council Regulation, namely to the extent that the duty had been calculated by relying on the technique of so-called ‘zeroing’.
U presudi Suda u predmetu C-351/04 Ikea (predmet C-351/04 Ikea [2007.] ECR I-7723) Sud je Uredbu Vijeća proglasio djelomično nevaljanom, odnosno u mjeri u kojoj je pristojba izračunata primjenom tehnike tzv. „postavljanja na nulu”.
See for example Council Regulation (EC) No 412/2009 of 18 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ L 125, 25.1.2009, p. 1) (compliance with Huvis); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2012 of 21 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine (OJ L 165, 26.6.2012, p. 1) (compliance with Interpipe Nikopolsky).
Vidjeti, primjerice, Uredbu Vijeća (EZ) br. 412/2009 od 18. svibnja 2009. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 428/2005 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz rezanih vlakana od poliestera podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Saudijske Arabije, o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2852/2000 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz rezanih vlakana od poliestera podrijetlom iz Republike Koreje i prekidu antidampinškog postupka u pogledu takvog uvoza podrijetlom iz Tajvana (SL L 125, 25.1.2009., str. 1.) (usklađenost s predmetom Huvis); Provedbena uredba Vijeća (EU) br. 540/2012 od 21. lipnja 2012. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 954/2006 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz određenih bešavnih cijevi od željeza ili čelika podrijetlom iz Hrvatske, Rumunjske, Rusije i Ukrajine (SL L 165, 26.6.2012., str. 1.) (usklađenost s presudom Interpipe Nikopolsky).
See for example Case C-338/10 Gruenwald Logistik Services [2012] ECR I-0000 and the reimposition of duties by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 49, 22.2.2013, p. 29).
Vidjeti, primjerice, predmet C-338/10 Gruenwald Logistik Services [2012.] ECR I-0000 i ponovno uvođenje pristojbi Provedbenom uredbom Vijeća (EU) br. 158/2013 o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz pripremljenih ili konzerviranih agruma (mandarina itd.) podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine (SL L 49, 22.2.2013., str. 29.).
See also the following examples: In case T-158/10 Dow v Council, the General Court found that there was no likelihood of continuation of dumping (Case T-158/10 Dow v Council [2012] ECR II-0000, paragraphs 47 and 59).
Vidjeti i sljedeće primjere: u predmetu T-158/10 Dow protiv Vijeća Opći sud utvrdio je da ne postoji vjerojatnost ponavljanja dampinga (predmet T-158/10 Dow protiv Vijeća [2012.] ECR II-0000, točke 47. i 59.).
In case T-107/04 Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Council, the General Court found that there was no causal link between dumping and injury (Case T-107/04 Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Council [2007] ECR II-672, paragraph 116).
U predmetu T-107/04 Aluminium Silicon Mill Products protiv Vijeća Opći sud utvrdio je da ne postoji uzročno-posljedična veza između dampinga i štete (predmet T-107/04 Aluminium Silicon Mill Products protiv Vijeća [2007.] ECR II-672, točka 116.).
Pursuant to the general principle of Union law of res judicata, the Commission and the Council are bound by the findings of the Union Courts, where those can, on the basis of the facts in front of them, come to a definitive conclusion on dumping, injury, causal link and Union interest.
U skladu s općim načelom pravomoćne presude u sklopu prava Unije, Komisija i Vijeće obvezni su poštovati nalaze sudova Unije ako oni, na temelju činjenica koje su im na raspolaganju, mogu donijeti konačan zaključak o dampingu, šteti, uzročno-posljedičnoj vezi i interesu Unije.
The Commission and the Council can therefore not deviate from the Union Court's findings.
Stoga Komisija i Vijeće ne mogu odstupati od nalaza sudova Unije.
In such a situation, the investigation is closed by virtue of the judgement of the Union Courts, which come to the definitive conclusion that the complaint of the Union industry is unfounded in law.
U toj se situaciji ispitni postupak zatvara presudom sudova Unije koji donose konačan zaključak da je pritužba industrije Unije neosnovana.
Following those two judgments, there was therefore no scope for the Commission and the Council to resume an investigation, which is why no further steps were taken following those judgments.
U skladu s te dvije presude Komisija i Vijeće nisu mogli nastaviti ispitni postupak te zbog toga nakon tih presuda nisu poduzete daljnje mjere.
Case 199/82 San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, paragraph 13.
Predmet 199/82 San Giorgio [1983.] ECR 3595, točka 13.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ L 98, 6.4.2006, p. 3).
Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 553/2006 o uvođenju privremenih antidampinških pristojbi na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Vijetnama (SL L 98, 6.4.2006., str. 3.).
OJ L 41, 18.2.2016, p. 3.
SL L 41, 18.2.2016., str. 3.
By virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 301, 31.10.2006, p. 1) this CN code is replaced on 1 January 2007 by CN codes ex64035105, ex64035905, ex64039105 and ex64039905.
Na temelju Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 1549/2006 od 17. listopada 2006. o izmjeni Priloga I. Uredbi Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2658/87 o tarifnoj i statističkoj nomenklaturi i o Zajedničkoj carinskoj tarifi (SL L 301, 31.10.2006., str. 1.) ova je oznaka KN 1. siječnja 2007. zamijenjena oznakama KN ex64035105, ex64035905, ex64039105 i ex64039905.
As defined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 286, 28.10.2005, p. 1).
Kako je određeno Uredbom Komisije (EZ) br. 1719/2005 od 27. listopada 2005. o izmjeni Priloga I. Uredbi Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2658/87 o tarifnoj i statističkoj nomenklaturi i o Zajedničkoj carinskoj tarifi (SL L 286, 28.10.2005., str. 1.).
The product coverage is determined in combining the product description in Article 1(1) and the product description of the corresponding CN codes taken together.
Opseg proizvoda utvrđen je kombinacijom opisa proizvoda u članku 1. Stavku 1. i opisa proizvoda odgovarajućih oznaka KN.
OJ L 286, 28.10.2005, p. 1.
SL L 286, 28.10.2005., str. 1.
The impact resistance shall be measured according to European Norms EN345 or EN346.
Otpornost na udarce mjeri se u skladu s europskim normama EN345 ili EN346.
TARIC codes for footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather as defined in Article 1
Oznake TARIC za obuću s gornjim dijelom od kože ili umjetne kože kako je utvrđena u članku 1.
From 7 October 2006:
od 7. listopada 2006.:
6403300039, 6403300089, 6403511190, 6403511590, 6403511990, 6403519190, 6403519590, 6403519990, 6403591190, 6403593190, 6403593590, 6403593990, 6403599190, 6403599590, 6403599990, 6403911199, 6403911399, 6403911699, 6403911899, 6403919199, 6403919399, 6403919699, 6403919899, 6403991190, 6403993190, 6403993390, 6403993690, 6403993890, 6403999199, 6403999329, 6403999399, 6403999629, 6403999699, 6403999829, 6403999899 and 6405100080
6403300039, 6403300089, 6403511190, 6403511590, 6403511990, 6403519190, 6403519590, 6403519990, 6403591190, 6403593190, 6403593590, 6403593990, 6403599190, 6403599590, 6403599990, 6403911199, 6403911399, 6403911699, 6403911899, 6403919199, 6403919399, 6403919699, 6403919899, 6403991190, 6403993190, 6403993390, 6403993690, 6403993890, 6403999199, 6403999329, 6403999399, 6403999629, 6403999699, 6403999829, 6403999899 i 6405100080
From 1 January 2007:
od 1. siječnja 2007.:
6403510519, 6403510599, 6403511190, 6403511590, 6403511990, 6403519190, 6403519590, 6403519990, 6403590519, 6403590599, 6403591190, 6403593190, 6403593590, 6403593990, 6403599190, 6403599590, 6403599990, 6403910519, 6403910599, 6403911199, 6403911399, 6403911699, 6403911899, 6403919199, 6403919399, 6403919699, 6403919899, 6403990519, 6403990599, 6403991190, 6403993190, 6403993390, 6403993690, 6403993890, 6403999199, 6403999329, 6403999399, 6403999629, 6403999699, 6403999829, 6403999899 and 6405100080
6403510519, 6403510599, 6403511190, 6403511590, 6403511990, 6403519190, 6403519590, 6403519990, 6403590519, 6403590599, 6403591190, 6403593190, 6403593590, 6403593990, 6403599190, 6403599590, 6403599990, 6403910519, 6403910599, 6403911199, 6403911399, 6403911699, 6403911899, 6403919199, 6403919399, 6403919699, 6403919899, 6403990519, 6403990599, 6403991190, 6403993190, 6403993390, 6403993690, 6403993890, 6403999199, 6403999329, 6403999399, 6403999629, 6403999699, 6403999829, 6403999899 i 6405100080
From 7 September 2007:
od 7. rujna 2007.:
6403510515, 6403510518, 6403510595, 6403510598, 6403511191, 6403511199, 6403511591, 6403511599, 6403511991, 6403511999, 6403519191, 6403519199, 6403519591, 6403519599, 6403519991, 6403519999, 6403590515, 6403590518, 6403590595, 6403590598, 6403591191, 6403591199, 6403593191, 6403593199, 6403593591, 6403593599, 6403593991, 6403593999, 6403599191, 6403599199, 6403599591, 6403599599, 6403599991, 6403599999, 6403910515, 6403910518, 6403910595, 6403910598, 6403911195, 6403911198, 6403911395, 6403911398, 6403911695, 6403911698, 6403911895, 6403911898, 6403919195, 6403919198, 6403919395, 6403919398, 6403919695, 6403919698, 6403919895, 6403919898, 6403990515, 6403990518, 6403990595, 6403990598, 6403991191, 6403991199, 6403993191, 6403993199, 6403993391, 6403993399, 6403993691, 6403993699, 6403993891, 6403993899, 6403999195, 6403999198, 6403999325, 6403999328, 6403999395, 6403999398, 6403999625, 6403999628, 6403999695, 6403999698, 6403999825, 6403999828, 6403999895, 6403999898, 6405100081 and 6405100089
6403510515, 6403510518, 6403510595, 6403510598, 6403511191, 6403511199, 6403511591, 6403511599, 6403511991, 6403511999, 6403519191, 6403519199, 6403519591, 6403519599, 6403519991, 6403519999, 6403590515, 6403590518, 6403590595, 6403590598, 6403591191, 6403591199, 6403593191, 6403593199, 6403593591, 6403593599, 6403593991, 6403593999, 6403599191, 6403599199, 6403599591, 6403599599, 6403599991, 6403599999, 6403910515, 6403910518, 6403910595, 6403910598, 6403911195, 6403911198, 6403911395, 6403911398, 6403911695, 6403911698, 6403911895, 6403911898, 6403919195, 6403919198, 6403919395, 6403919398, 6403919695, 6403919698, 6403919895, 6403919898, 6403990515, 6403990518, 6403990595, 6403990598, 6403991191, 6403991199, 6403993191, 6403993199, 6403993391, 6403993399, 6403993691, 6403993699, 6403993891, 6403993899, 6403999195, 6403999198, 6403999325, 6403999328, 6403999395, 6403999398, 6403999625, 6403999628, 6403999695, 6403999698, 6403999825, 6403999828, 6403999895, 6403999898, 6405100081 i 6405100089
List of exporting producers
Popis proizvođača izvoznika
Name of the exporting producer
Naziv proizvođača izvoznika
Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd
Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co., Ltd.
Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd
Dongguan Stella Footwear Co Ltd
Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd
Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd.
Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd
Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd.
Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd
Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd.
Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd
Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd.
It held: […] the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation. It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation. It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET. As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate (paragraph 42 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Smatrao je sljedeće: „[…] Komisija je trebala ispitati potkrijepljene zahtjeve koje su joj dostavili žalitelji na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točaka (b) i (c) Osnovne uredbe za potrebe zahtijevanja MET-a u kontekstu antidampinškog postupka [koji je] predmet Sporne uredbe. Zatim se mora utvrditi da se ne može isključiti mogućnost da bi posljedica takvog ispitivanja bilo uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe na žalitelje različite od pristojbe od 16,5 % koja se na njih primjenjuje na temelju članka 1. stavka 3. Sporne uredbe. Iz te je odredbe očito da je konačna antidampinška pristojba od 9,7 % uvedena za jedinog kineskog trgovca u uzorku kojem je dodijeljen MET. Kako je iz prethodne točke 38. očito, da je Komisija utvrdila da su uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva vrijedili i za žalitelje, i žalitelji su trebali ostvariti korist od iste te stope ako izračun individualne dampinške marže nije bio moguć” (točka 42. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 36. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
The Commission has examined whether MET and IT prevailed for the Chinese exporting producers of Clark and Puma, which submitted MET and/or IT requests in that investigation, during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Komisija je ispitala jesu li za kineske proizvođače izvoznike društava Clark i Puma, koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i/ili IT u tom ispitnom postupku, MET i IT prevladavali u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005.
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the two importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of their Chinese suppliers which requested MET and/or IT.
Svrha je tog određivanja utvrditi mjeru u kojoj dva predmetna uvoznika imaju pravo na povrat antidampinške pristojbe plaćene u pogledu antidampinških pristojbi koje se plaćaju za izvoz njihovih kineskih dobavljača koji su zatražili MET i/ili IT.
The period of application of that Regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
Razdoblje primjene te Uredbe prvotno je bilo od 7. listopada 2006. do 7. listopada 2008.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
Nakon pokretanja revizije zbog predstojećeg isteka mjera ono je 30. prosinca 2009. produljeno do 31. ožujka 2011.
The illegality identified in the judgments is that the Union Institutions failed to establish whether the products produced by the exporting producers concerned should be subject to the residual duty or to an individual duty or to the duty of the company in the sample that was granted MET.
Nezakonitost utvrđena u presudama u tome je što institucije Unije nisu uspjele utvrditi bi li proizvodi koje proizvode predmetni proizvođači izvoznici trebali podlijegati preostaloj pristojbi, pojedinačnoj pristojbi ili pristojbi društva u uzorku kojem je odobren MET.
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called ‘Brosmann amendment’ dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012’.
Kao drugo, Uredba 1168/2012 (tzv. „Izmjena koja se odnosi na predmet Brosmann” koja se tiče MET-a) u svom čl. 2. predviđa da „se ova Uredba primjenjuje na sve nove i tekuće ispitne postupke od 15. prosinca 2012.”.
Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012.
Stoga, da je Komisija usvojila strogi pristup, ne bi bilo uopće potrebno ocjenjivati zahtjeve za MET društava koja nisu u uzorku jer su ona izgubila pravo na ocjenu MET-a dana 15. prosinca 2012.
However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments.
Međutim, Komisija smatra da bi takvo postupanje bilo teško pomirljivo s njezinom obvezom da provede presude.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 27 March 2006 shall be definitively collected by the present Regulation.
Iznosi osigurani privremenom antidampinškom pristojbom u skladu s Uredbom Komisije (EZ) br. 553/2006 od 27. ožujka 2006. konačno se naplaćuju ovom Uredbom.
The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty shall be released.
Oslobađaju se osigurani iznosi koji premašuju konačnu stopu antidampinške pristojbe.